Gmail: Trap my contacts now (warning when exporting contacts to Facebook)(google.com)
google.com
Gmail: Trap my contacts now (warning when exporting contacts to Facebook)
http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html
174 comments
http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-to-...
Relevant quote from Google:
"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"
Lets recap:
1. Users use data exporter en masse to abandon Orkut.
2. Google breaks the exporter. Supposedly a bug, coincidentally when people are actually now using it.
3. Google changes the exporter so emails are no longer included.
4. Google says social networks shouldn't be expected to allow mass email exportation.
5. 12 months pass
6. Google breaks the gmail exporter to Facebook. Social networks apparently are now expected export all e-mails. Press eats it up.
Look, I'm not arguing that email exporting should or shouldn't be allowed. I don't really want my friends giving my email to Farmville so they get a golden banana, but it's not the end of the world. What I don't get though, is people talking about this like Google is some godly force of good, championing the rights of users against the evil Facebook.
Please. Google is getting scared, and made a calculated (albeit hypocritical) business decision to try and slow down Facebook's growth. The rest of this is BS PR spin and Techcrunch sensationalism to fan the drama fires.
Relevant quote from Google:
"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"
Lets recap:
1. Users use data exporter en masse to abandon Orkut.
2. Google breaks the exporter. Supposedly a bug, coincidentally when people are actually now using it.
3. Google changes the exporter so emails are no longer included.
4. Google says social networks shouldn't be expected to allow mass email exportation.
5. 12 months pass
6. Google breaks the gmail exporter to Facebook. Social networks apparently are now expected export all e-mails. Press eats it up.
Look, I'm not arguing that email exporting should or shouldn't be allowed. I don't really want my friends giving my email to Farmville so they get a golden banana, but it's not the end of the world. What I don't get though, is people talking about this like Google is some godly force of good, championing the rights of users against the evil Facebook.
Please. Google is getting scared, and made a calculated (albeit hypocritical) business decision to try and slow down Facebook's growth. The rest of this is BS PR spin and Techcrunch sensationalism to fan the drama fires.
The GMail exporter is not broken, it just warns you.
1000% eh? So you hire 9 slaves to approve alongside you? Interesting. Are they on your contacts? Hmmmm?
Much much much more wiery when people give out their email password to any other service period. Plus why would you care if you can't get the info out of facebook? You already have it in gmail. I dunno, I feel like I dodged so many bullets by not using facebook.
Much much much more wiery when people give out their email password to any other service period. Plus why would you care if you can't get the info out of facebook? You already have it in gmail. I dunno, I feel like I dodged so many bullets by not using facebook.
Actually, it is like they stop you from exporting. Here's the message I get when I try to import my contacts into Faceboook:
Google did not return any of your contacts. You can still find your friends on Facebook by uploading a file of your Gmail contacts below.
... followed by instructions on how to download my gmail contacts to a file and re-upload them.
So it seems that Google's implementation of their "whining at you about their problems while you're just trying to get on with your life" page is broken.
The end result is that you cannot export your contacts from Gmail at the present.
Google did not return any of your contacts. You can still find your friends on Facebook by uploading a file of your Gmail contacts below.
... followed by instructions on how to download my gmail contacts to a file and re-upload them.
So it seems that Google's implementation of their "whining at you about their problems while you're just trying to get on with your life" page is broken.
The end result is that you cannot export your contacts from Gmail at the present.
Clicking on the link to the "trap" page and checking "Proceed with exporting this data" brings up a "Download my contact information" button. Clicking that gives me a csv file with all my Google contact information.
So I can certainly export my Google contact data. I don't have a Facebook account, so I don't know whether it can import it. But the data is there, in an easy to parse format.
So I can certainly export my Google contact data. I don't have a Facebook account, so I don't know whether it can import it. But the data is there, in an easy to parse format.
You can export them just fine - they just aren't allowing a 3rd party site to automatically import them - they're making you consciously do it yourself.
To someone who can do it either way, this may just seem like an annoyance, but a great many people won't grasp the severity of what they are about to do by handing their credentials for gmail over to facebook.
To someone who can do it either way, this may just seem like an annoyance, but a great many people won't grasp the severity of what they are about to do by handing their credentials for gmail over to facebook.
Exactly. One week ago, you could seamlessly import them into Facebook.
- That's a big step back.
- It makes things worse for their users.
- There is no positive effect from the change.
- They did it on purpose.
Facebook is play a greedy game theory strategy by not allowing for a user to download their social graph. Googles response was to use a tit for tat game theory strategy which is effective against the greedy game theory strategy.
The greedy game theory strategy in this case ends up being bad for consumers, they can not download their social graph from Facebook. Game theory subjects that when the vast major of agents are using the greedy strategy that is is impractical for a generous or tit for tact agent to survive. Each company that plays the greedy strategy is a step down the road to the greedy equilibrium. Where no companies offer easy methods to download your social graph or relevant information.
Google played a tit for tat strategy and did the world a service by preventing one step on the road to the greedy equilibrium.
The greedy game theory strategy in this case ends up being bad for consumers, they can not download their social graph from Facebook. Game theory subjects that when the vast major of agents are using the greedy strategy that is is impractical for a generous or tit for tact agent to survive. Each company that plays the greedy strategy is a step down the road to the greedy equilibrium. Where no companies offer easy methods to download your social graph or relevant information.
Google played a tit for tat strategy and did the world a service by preventing one step on the road to the greedy equilibrium.
> Facebook is play a greedy game theory strategy by not allowing for a user to download their social graph.
You CAN download your graph data. You can get friends lists with UIDs, and that is theoretically AND practically enough to reconstruct the graph on a third party site. The only difference between getting UIDs and emails is the third party site won't be able to spam all your friends or connect you with your friends unless you've also opted to use Facebook graph data.
You CAN download your graph data. You can get friends lists with UIDs, and that is theoretically AND practically enough to reconstruct the graph on a third party site. The only difference between getting UIDs and emails is the third party site won't be able to spam all your friends or connect you with your friends unless you've also opted to use Facebook graph data.
* If avoiding third party spammers is the reason not to share email address, then it follows that Google should disallow the contacts api. This would be unfortunate
* Google could provide google UIDs instead of emails when downloading contacts. This is theoretically and practically enough to reconstruct the social graph as well. Every company could use their own UID for downloads instead of emails. I do not think it would be practical to reconstruct a social graph across companies however. This is a greedy strategy that would cause inefficiencies and prevent innovation in my opinion.
* Google could provide google UIDs instead of emails when downloading contacts. This is theoretically and practically enough to reconstruct the social graph as well. Every company could use their own UID for downloads instead of emails. I do not think it would be practical to reconstruct a social graph across companies however. This is a greedy strategy that would cause inefficiencies and prevent innovation in my opinion.
> * If avoiding third party spammers is the reason not to share email address, then it follows that Google should disallow the contacts api. This would be unfortunate
No that doesn't follow because on Google Contacts I give you my email address. On Facebook I "friend" you, which doesn't really even necessarily mean I'm your friend. I don't want you then to be able to automatically export my email to third parties.
> * Google could provide google UIDs instead of emails when downloading contacts. This is theoretically and practically enough to reconstruct the social graph as well. Every company could use their own UID for downloads instead of emails. I do not think it would be practical to reconstruct a social graph across companies however. This is a greedy strategy that would cause inefficiencies and prevent innovation in my opinion.
Google Contacts is for storing emails you've collected. Facebook is for friending people and I just happened to have to provide my email when signing up... oh just like about every other site on the web.
No that doesn't follow because on Google Contacts I give you my email address. On Facebook I "friend" you, which doesn't really even necessarily mean I'm your friend. I don't want you then to be able to automatically export my email to third parties.
> * Google could provide google UIDs instead of emails when downloading contacts. This is theoretically and practically enough to reconstruct the social graph as well. Every company could use their own UID for downloads instead of emails. I do not think it would be practical to reconstruct a social graph across companies however. This is a greedy strategy that would cause inefficiencies and prevent innovation in my opinion.
Google Contacts is for storing emails you've collected. Facebook is for friending people and I just happened to have to provide my email when signing up... oh just like about every other site on the web.
> No that doesn't follow because on Google Contacts I give you my email address. On Facebook I "friend" you, which doesn't really even necessarily mean I'm your friend. I don't want you then to be able to automatically export my email to third parties.
You can make your email private in Facebook and you do not have to friend people. I would argue for a downloadable list of contacts/email address whose emails you have access to. Facebook already allows hotmail+yahoo access to the email lists, the individual user can not download it directly.
>Google Contacts is for storing emails you've collected. Facebook is for friending people and I just happened to have to provide my email when signing up... oh just like about every other site on the web.
Add decide to let everyone on your friends list have access to your email address, unless you make it private that is. So I would say Facebook is different in this regard then every other site on the web.
You can make your email private in Facebook and you do not have to friend people. I would argue for a downloadable list of contacts/email address whose emails you have access to. Facebook already allows hotmail+yahoo access to the email lists, the individual user can not download it directly.
>Google Contacts is for storing emails you've collected. Facebook is for friending people and I just happened to have to provide my email when signing up... oh just like about every other site on the web.
Add decide to let everyone on your friends list have access to your email address, unless you make it private that is. So I would say Facebook is different in this regard then every other site on the web.
> You can make your email private in Facebook and you do not have to friend people. I would argue for a downloadable list of contacts/email address whose emails you have access to. Facebook already allows hotmail+yahoo access to the email lists, the individual user can not download it directly.
I friend people based on the assumption that they can't export my email to arbitrary third parties (which is true at the moment). If this is no longer true I would delete all my friends, sue facebook, and meet friends in person to socialize. But the other thing you mention is reasonable. But it would have to be opt-in since by default I don't think people would want this. Also since originally signing up this feature was not implied.
I friend people based on the assumption that they can't export my email to arbitrary third parties (which is true at the moment). If this is no longer true I would delete all my friends, sue facebook, and meet friends in person to socialize. But the other thing you mention is reasonable. But it would have to be opt-in since by default I don't think people would want this. Also since originally signing up this feature was not implied.
So what if I wanted to use my Facebook contacts to see how many of my Facebook friends were on Buzz or Twitter?
Facebook wants us to use our Gmail username and password to import contacts from those services directly into their network but they don't want us importing our contacts into Twitter?
I don't get how that is not a greedy thing.
Facebook wants us to use our Gmail username and password to import contacts from those services directly into their network but they don't want us importing our contacts into Twitter?
I don't get how that is not a greedy thing.
> I don't get how that is not a greedy thing.
Because most of Facebook's users didn't sign up for this. They didn't sign up to necessarily share contact info. They signed up to connect socially. Do you expect twitter to start handing out email addresses of the people that sign up on Twitter.com? No because you sign up on Twitter to share short 140 character messages, not email addresses like you do when you sign up to use Google Contacts.
If a third party application wants your email addresses, you can go give it to them yourself. Otherwise what's the point of Facebook making it dead simple for people to give third party apps your email address? The only reason I can think is that greedy third party apps want to siphon Facebook's built up social graph by using spammy viral emailing techniques as opposed to getting individual users to sign up or add the Facebook application.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Facebook does let you compare email hashes. So this allows 3rd party apps/sites to link two users up if they are friends on Facebook.
So in the end yes it is convenient for Facebook to take this stance of not making it easy to export your friends' email addresses but it truly does have a legitimate negative aspect to it. And in the end Facebook still provides the requisite methods to make it easy for people to leave Facebook.
Because most of Facebook's users didn't sign up for this. They didn't sign up to necessarily share contact info. They signed up to connect socially. Do you expect twitter to start handing out email addresses of the people that sign up on Twitter.com? No because you sign up on Twitter to share short 140 character messages, not email addresses like you do when you sign up to use Google Contacts.
If a third party application wants your email addresses, you can go give it to them yourself. Otherwise what's the point of Facebook making it dead simple for people to give third party apps your email address? The only reason I can think is that greedy third party apps want to siphon Facebook's built up social graph by using spammy viral emailing techniques as opposed to getting individual users to sign up or add the Facebook application.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Facebook does let you compare email hashes. So this allows 3rd party apps/sites to link two users up if they are friends on Facebook.
So in the end yes it is convenient for Facebook to take this stance of not making it easy to export your friends' email addresses but it truly does have a legitimate negative aspect to it. And in the end Facebook still provides the requisite methods to make it easy for people to leave Facebook.
Well if your friends imported their Facebook data into Buzz or Twitter then it should be possible.
There is a positive effect from the change: more people will be aware of Facebook's practices with respect to their contact data. I think Google is betting that this positive effect outweighs the negative effects.
Because Gmail can't import Facebook contacts. Google is trying to use it's influence to encourage Facebook to improve it's data portability while still not locking users in.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Seems like a good idea to me.
With respect, none of our own sites have the heft of Google behind it.
But it is true that Facebook doesn't allow exporting user's contact data. So I think Google is making a valid point here. You are still free to do whatever with your own data - unlike Facebook. They are just making sure that you understand the risks in doing so.
> This will slow down my AOL-using friends who gave away all their contact info to Facebook and now I get pelted with spam ...
Right; there are practical usability problems with allowing willy-nilly access to your contact list. Some of your contacts have now given your email address to a company with which you never wanted to have a relationship.
Which is precisely Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API to download your friends' email addresses. Thanks for providing a concrete reminder of the legitimacy of this choice.
Right; there are practical usability problems with allowing willy-nilly access to your contact list. Some of your contacts have now given your email address to a company with which you never wanted to have a relationship.
Which is precisely Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API to download your friends' email addresses. Thanks for providing a concrete reminder of the legitimacy of this choice.
Right; there are practical usability problems with allowing willy-nilly access to your contact list. Some of your contacts have now given your email address to a company with which you never wanted to have a relationship.
This is a red herring. Facebook lets me choose whether my friends can give away literally anything else that's part of my Facebook presence to third party apps. In fact, there's a strong recommendation that I allow as much access to apps as possible, in the name of a "more social" experience. They let apps that I've never used spam me daily, I don't really get the sense that they care whether they force me into relationships with companies I have no interest in, as long as it happens within Facebook.
Why should I not get to decide whether to expose my e-mail address? If I want to, I'm allowed to set my e-mail address to "Everyone" visibility in my profile, literally the only thing I'm not allowed to do is expose it via the API.
That's a very deliberate choice, and maybe I'm a cynic, but it strikes me as mighty telling that the lack of API access to the e-mail part of the social graph is just about the only barrier in the way of Google being able to reconstitute the entire Gmail intersection of Facebook's social graph (Facebook UIDs don't suffice, because Google can't match these to e-mail addresses without the users explicitly doing so for them).
This is a red herring. Facebook lets me choose whether my friends can give away literally anything else that's part of my Facebook presence to third party apps. In fact, there's a strong recommendation that I allow as much access to apps as possible, in the name of a "more social" experience. They let apps that I've never used spam me daily, I don't really get the sense that they care whether they force me into relationships with companies I have no interest in, as long as it happens within Facebook.
Why should I not get to decide whether to expose my e-mail address? If I want to, I'm allowed to set my e-mail address to "Everyone" visibility in my profile, literally the only thing I'm not allowed to do is expose it via the API.
That's a very deliberate choice, and maybe I'm a cynic, but it strikes me as mighty telling that the lack of API access to the e-mail part of the social graph is just about the only barrier in the way of Google being able to reconstitute the entire Gmail intersection of Facebook's social graph (Facebook UIDs don't suffice, because Google can't match these to e-mail addresses without the users explicitly doing so for them).
This makes the assumption you already have a relationship (an account) with Facebook. If you do not have an account with Facebook, you do not have this control. kmavm's post indicates that they do not have, nor do they want to have, such an account.
However, this wish has no effect on Facebook, they will continue to send him invites on the behalf of his friends, who uploaded his email address for him.
However, this wish has no effect on Facebook, they will continue to send him invites on the behalf of his friends, who uploaded his email address for him.
> Which is precisely Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API to download your friends' email addresses.
So why does it give it to Yahoo mail and Hotmail? Please answer that question.
Relevant link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1889378
So why does it give it to Yahoo mail and Hotmail? Please answer that question.
Relevant link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1889378
They also give it to me too. I have a Samsung Galaxy S and it, out of the box, syncs with Facebook including e-mail addresses.
What is Facebook's reasoning, then, for providing an API to download complete friend lists, location, real names, and other data a user didn't wade through privacy settings to lock down?
Handing information to a company with which a user never wanted to have a relationship is bad when it results in spam-filled inboxes, which end users might notice and directly associate with FB's policies. As long as the potential abuse is hidden from the user's view, though, FB wholeheartedly endorses it.
Handing information to a company with which a user never wanted to have a relationship is bad when it results in spam-filled inboxes, which end users might notice and directly associate with FB's policies. As long as the potential abuse is hidden from the user's view, though, FB wholeheartedly endorses it.
Ummm...they are my contacts.
"Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API" is because they want to protect me from other Facebook type companies? Really?
...or is it that they don't want us moving our data to another social network?
Let's get real. Facebook can spin it however they want. We all know what's up!
"Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API" is because they want to protect me from other Facebook type companies? Really?
...or is it that they don't want us moving our data to another social network?
Let's get real. Facebook can spin it however they want. We all know what's up!
...not to mention, a concrete reminder of the hypocrisy of Facebook's argument.
"Facebook - we protect your contacts, so unscrupulous websites can't spam them like we do."
"Facebook - we protect your contacts, so unscrupulous websites can't spam them like we do."
Le sigh.
I think Google has lost sight of something very simple in this fracas:
With Google Contacts, the user directly manages his contacts' email addresses.
With Facebook, the user delegates management of email address to his contacts.
These are not the same thing. The Google contacts team seems to think that Facebook is an address book just like them. They are not. And to me, that failure to understand the differences is the root source of all this tomfoolery.
--
Edit after some very welcome discussion downstream:
On GMail, my contacts' email addresses are MY data.
On Facebook, my contacts' email addresses are NOT my data. The FACT that I am connected to my contacts is my data, but any information about those contacts does not belong to me.
This is why Facebook is not an address book, and pretending it as an address book where "your data gets stuck" is bound to lead to frustration for everyone.
I think Google has lost sight of something very simple in this fracas:
With Google Contacts, the user directly manages his contacts' email addresses.
With Facebook, the user delegates management of email address to his contacts.
These are not the same thing. The Google contacts team seems to think that Facebook is an address book just like them. They are not. And to me, that failure to understand the differences is the root source of all this tomfoolery.
--
Edit after some very welcome discussion downstream:
On GMail, my contacts' email addresses are MY data.
On Facebook, my contacts' email addresses are NOT my data. The FACT that I am connected to my contacts is my data, but any information about those contacts does not belong to me.
This is why Facebook is not an address book, and pretending it as an address book where "your data gets stuck" is bound to lead to frustration for everyone.
And juste because I delegated management of contacts to Facebook, are they excused for not letting me get my data out whenever I want to switch contact management services -- for example -- to diaspora?
Again, this hinges on the meaning "my data".
From your statement, I am guessing you believe that the email addresses of your contacts is your data.
So here's the thought experiment:
Amy uses GMail and has been corresponding with Bill, who works at Acme. Bill's email address, [email protected], is in Amy's GMail address book. "[email protected]" is now a piece of data that is, unquestionably, "owned" by Amy.
Amy joins Facebook, uses the GMail importer to detect if any of her GMail contacts are also on Facebook, and sees that Bill is on Facebook. She asks to be Bill's friend, and he accepts.
Several months later, Bill gets a new job. He now works for The Nonprofit Foundation, and his new email address is [email protected]. Bill logs into his Facebook account and updates his email address.
Because Amy uses Facebook and is friends with Bill, she can see his new email address.
Is the piece of data "[email protected]" now "owned" by Amy?
--
Personally, I think it's a complex question. I don't automatically ascribe ownership of "[email protected]" to Amy, and it's hard for me to say that she has a right to export that email address out of Facebook. Others may disagree. But I would hope we ALL can agree that the above scenario is not black and white, and that we can have a reasoned discussion about data ownership.
From your statement, I am guessing you believe that the email addresses of your contacts is your data.
So here's the thought experiment:
Amy uses GMail and has been corresponding with Bill, who works at Acme. Bill's email address, [email protected], is in Amy's GMail address book. "[email protected]" is now a piece of data that is, unquestionably, "owned" by Amy.
Amy joins Facebook, uses the GMail importer to detect if any of her GMail contacts are also on Facebook, and sees that Bill is on Facebook. She asks to be Bill's friend, and he accepts.
Several months later, Bill gets a new job. He now works for The Nonprofit Foundation, and his new email address is [email protected]. Bill logs into his Facebook account and updates his email address.
Because Amy uses Facebook and is friends with Bill, she can see his new email address.
Is the piece of data "[email protected]" now "owned" by Amy?
--
Personally, I think it's a complex question. I don't automatically ascribe ownership of "[email protected]" to Amy, and it's hard for me to say that she has a right to export that email address out of Facebook. Others may disagree. But I would hope we ALL can agree that the above scenario is not black and white, and that we can have a reasoned discussion about data ownership.
If Bill puts his new e-mail address on Facebook - he has effectively chosen to give it away. It is now information that all of his friends own.
Choose your friends carefully, but choose the data you put on Facebook with even more discretion.
Choose your friends carefully, but choose the data you put on Facebook with even more discretion.
You can make email addresses private on Facebook, so that none of your friends can see them. However, people who already have your email address can use it to find you.
Facebook and Google are using those email addresses for very different purposes: Facebook uses them to identify the profiles of your contacts (the user id is the lasting identity) whereas for Google the email address itself is the relevant identity.
Facebook and Google are using those email addresses for very different purposes: Facebook uses them to identify the profiles of your contacts (the user id is the lasting identity) whereas for Google the email address itself is the relevant identity.
I don't automatically ascribe ownership of "[email protected]" to Amy, and it's hard for me to say that she has a right to export that email address out of Facebook.
Define "export". Are you saying that she only has the "right" to use Bill's address within Facebook, so that sending Bill an email with Outlook or GMail is some sort of violation? Or is it only automated mass export that you object to?
Define "export". Are you saying that she only has the "right" to use Bill's address within Facebook, so that sending Bill an email with Outlook or GMail is some sort of violation? Or is it only automated mass export that you object to?
The point is FB can sell your data to other companies like Yahoo and Microsoft and this is not a privacy issue. When you attempt to download your own data, it becomes one...ROFL..right..FB really thinks this is a privacy issue. It's just a PR stunt so they can keep all their data within their ecosystem.
That's not what I said.
With Facebook, you delegate authority to manage email address to YOUR CONTACTS (not Facebook).
In Google or any other address book, I can go into my friend Ted's contact and change his email address if I want to.
In Facebook, I can't change Ted's email address. Only Ted can change it.
To me, this is a MAJOR distinction.
With Facebook, you delegate authority to manage email address to YOUR CONTACTS (not Facebook).
In Google or any other address book, I can go into my friend Ted's contact and change his email address if I want to.
In Facebook, I can't change Ted's email address. Only Ted can change it.
To me, this is a MAJOR distinction.
I grant you the distinction. Now can you please explain why it's important and how Google failing to understand it is the cause of all this.
I just wrote a long-ish hypothetical further up the thread.
And you know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe Google DOES understand this just fine. But I think the strong language they're using, the bombastic language of "fairness" and "protectionism", implies that they are taking a subtle, nuanced issue of data ownership and pretending it's binary.
And you know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe Google DOES understand this just fine. But I think the strong language they're using, the bombastic language of "fairness" and "protectionism", implies that they are taking a subtle, nuanced issue of data ownership and pretending it's binary.
Facebook allows you to do this now. Go to Account->Account Settings->Download your Information.
In Facebook, email adresses are not considered your information and thus are not exportable AFAIK.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Except that you can export the email addresses if you use Hotmail or Yahoo! Contacts, which have special agreements with Facebook.
I did this, and even though it's super crappy because it doesn't map to my existing address book entries very well, at least I finally have my FB friends' email addresses.
I did this, and even though it's super crappy because it doesn't map to my existing address book entries very well, at least I finally have my FB friends' email addresses.
I don't think the difference is very important. I've almost never manually added a contact into Google and my contacts list has been built up by years of correspondence. In a sense, the people I've been emailing determine which address shows up in my contacts list.
In any case, even if there is a big difference, you haven't really said why the debate hinges on a failure to understand it.
In any case, even if there is a big difference, you haven't really said why the debate hinges on a failure to understand it.
No, you don't understand the distinction portman is making. It's not between "type in email myself" vs "harvest from email", i.e. a question of data entry. It's a question of management. With Google Contacts, I'm the one that updates an email address if someone else's address changes. With Facebook, all I manage is the list of contacts, while the contact manages their own email address. Which means that when someone changes their email address, I don't need to either know or care. And crucially, if someone I email infrequently changes their email, there's no danger that I "miss the window" and lose the contact entirely.
That's a pretty big difference.
That's a pretty big difference.
Does sending you a mail message gives you an implicit moral permission to upload my mail address to a third party web-site?
Does adding you as a friend on a social network site gives you an implicit moral permission to upload my "visible to friends" data to a third party web-site?
I guess what you are saying is that the answer to these two questions need not be the same.
[ The fact that Facebook will let you export my data to Yahoo (which will let you re-export it to anyone, just like GMail) kind of indicates that it is not the fine distinction above that governs Facebook's actions. ]
Does adding you as a friend on a social network site gives you an implicit moral permission to upload my "visible to friends" data to a third party web-site?
I guess what you are saying is that the answer to these two questions need not be the same.
[ The fact that Facebook will let you export my data to Yahoo (which will let you re-export it to anyone, just like GMail) kind of indicates that it is not the fine distinction above that governs Facebook's actions. ]
It is a pretty big difference, but I still don't see how failing to understand it on google's part (and they probably do understand it) is the source of all this.
Language like this makes me think they don't understand:
"essentially locking up your contact data about your friends"
Note the first 'your' in that sentence: From Google's P.O.V., the email address of your friend is your data. From Facebook's P.O.V, the email address of your friend is not your data -- it's the friend's data.
"essentially locking up your contact data about your friends"
Note the first 'your' in that sentence: From Google's P.O.V., the email address of your friend is your data. From Facebook's P.O.V, the email address of your friend is not your data -- it's the friend's data.
But Facebook will allow me to export that friend's data to Hotmail or Yahoo Mail. Doesn't that seem to completely contradict Facebook's entire stance?
From the other direction, I use one email address for public facing stuff and one for actual emails. So for me the email address Facebook has is actually worthless to me and the email address other people have for me in their Gmail accounts is hugely valuable to me.
Honestly I could care less if the email address used for Facebook is publicly posted and I get spammed from every penis enlargement pill salesmen on the planet, I never read it.
When my actual Gmail address gets passed to Facebook by someone who joined and imported their contact list, and then they email me, I find it to be far more of an invasion of privacy.
Honestly I could care less if the email address used for Facebook is publicly posted and I get spammed from every penis enlargement pill salesmen on the planet, I never read it.
When my actual Gmail address gets passed to Facebook by someone who joined and imported their contact list, and then they email me, I find it to be far more of an invasion of privacy.
On GMail, my contacts' email addresses are MY data.
I do not agree to it.
I do not agree to it.
should I, as your physician, release all my contacts data to Facebook? Do you suppose everyone with HIV wants a huge number of people to know that an infectious disease specialist in HIV is one of her contacts?
"I recognize that once it’s been imported to another service, that service may not allow me to export it back out."
I could see how this could scare the average user into thinking their contacts are moved from Google to facebook and stuck there, thus loosing their ability to use them within Google's products.
Do you think this is the intention?
I could see how this could scare the average user into thinking their contacts are moved from Google to facebook and stuck there, thus loosing their ability to use them within Google's products.
Do you think this is the intention?
The wording is definitely questionable. The savvy user will understand that if contacts are imported into Facebook and maintained there, changes can't be exported or synched back to Google--a valid concern. But the current warning copy doesn't quite capture that and seems to imply, as you've mentioned, that your data is moved.
Google is so engineering-oriented, I can't tell if this was an honest, poor choice of wording or intentionally vague for the purpose of inducing fear. I'm not against the warning if it's in the spirit of educating users about how to keep their data "free", but if this is indeed vendetta as others here are suggesting...well, that's Google's prerogative, but this method would seem a bit unprofessional. If they want to attack Facebook, I'd have more respect if they were explicit about it in this warning.
Google is so engineering-oriented, I can't tell if this was an honest, poor choice of wording or intentionally vague for the purpose of inducing fear. I'm not against the warning if it's in the spirit of educating users about how to keep their data "free", but if this is indeed vendetta as others here are suggesting...well, that's Google's prerogative, but this method would seem a bit unprofessional. If they want to attack Facebook, I'd have more respect if they were explicit about it in this warning.
It's a big "F U" to Facebook because they don't reciprocate.
I'm just waiting for the backroom deal between the two that will allow two way sharing between only them.
But Google lets you export your data. So if Facebook exports to Google, then your data can go anywhere, and we've won!
Not likely especially when the big MS daddy is looking around!
[deleted]
It's so nice of these two companies to be spending their time and money creating this great entertainment for all of us
Here's what Google had to say about social networks and email exporting less than one year ago:
"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."
The occasion was Google disabling exporting of contacts from Orkut to Facebook. I happen to think that both Google then, and Facebook now, are perfectly correct. However, I am curious how those who see Google as clearly in the right, and Facebook as clearly in the wrong, would reconcile Google's statement and actions of a year ago with its statements and actions of the last several days.
Edit: citation http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-to-...
"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."
The occasion was Google disabling exporting of contacts from Orkut to Facebook. I happen to think that both Google then, and Facebook now, are perfectly correct. However, I am curious how those who see Google as clearly in the right, and Facebook as clearly in the wrong, would reconcile Google's statement and actions of a year ago with its statements and actions of the last several days.
Edit: citation http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-to-...
Is this a new warning page that has been added following Facebook's actions, or one that has been around a while?
This gets better and better.
Time to grab some popcorn.
And i really like this move from google.
And i really like this move from google.
I used it to register a complaint even though I have no blood in this game. In general, I agree with Google's stance on this one, despite the fact that the motives are anything but altruistic as their verbiage tries to imply.
Actually this is boring - where are the HD explosions? The glib remarks by the heros? The hot babe they are trying to save?
Even Michael Bay was better than this.
Even Michael Bay was better than this.
Are you kidding me? Clearly you don't have the kickass bookmarklett installed.
http://erkie.github.com/
http://erkie.github.com/
yes, it's definitely new and it looks likely that this was added to warn facebook users who are tyring to export their google contacts.
Apparently it's a new
facebook's actions?
Interesting how the tide seems to turn. My Conspiracy theory:
I think Facebook might have gone to far with Facebook Deals. Now Groupon, its friends and other bystanders start to react less kindly to Facebook's business model: Copying ideas from other websites with nothing in return. Oh, well.
I think Facebook might have gone to far with Facebook Deals. Now Groupon, its friends and other bystanders start to react less kindly to Facebook's business model: Copying ideas from other websites with nothing in return. Oh, well.
It seems to me that their wording pushes their anti Facebook data locking agenda, intimidating novice users. To me, this goes against their "don't be evil" company motto.
To me it embodies their "don't be evil" company motto. I think Facebook is being evil here, and Google is fighting the good cause.
However, I can see your angle as well. It seems that the world is not black and white after all :(
However, I can see your angle as well. It seems that the world is not black and white after all :(
That Facebook is evil or not is irrelevant, I think. (I happen to think that their interests and the privacy interests of their users are not aligned at all). Google is fighting the good cause, ok, I agree. But the method they used in this instance is not the best. They could've simply said: "Hey look man. Facebook wants us to give them your contact data. These are the possible consequences: 1., 2., 3. Are you sure?" Their current wording implies (to me) that a user's data is all going to be imported and kept inside of FB and nowhere else (which is a key point), which is not true as Google holds the user's data as well. There will be divergence afterwards as the user begins to use Google and FB in different ways. But yeah, I do see that FB is not an easy place to get your data out of, but Google is using users' data as a pressure point to force FB's hand. What would be interesting to find out is if they are defending privacy because it's a noble thing to do, or if they are just defending privacy because it happens to benefit them in some other way.
edit: added "and nowhere else (which is a key point)"
edit: added "and nowhere else (which is a key point)"
Fortunately this gives more info to average users about their data and what's happening with it
Maybe they will care some day ...
Maybe they will care some day ...
There is a point that hasn't yet been mentioned here about the fundamental difference between an address book, and Facebook.
Facebook is okay to be a dead-end for contacts' emails, since the email upload is used once to find others on the service. After that, if you need to contact someone else on Facebook, you can do so with a wall post or an inbox message. The email address is irrelevant.
With an address book, you need it to be portable, since the medium is accessible from many different locations and services.
The fact is that you dont need to get your friends' contact details out of Facebook. You sign up for Facebook to make Friends on Facebook and communicate over Facebook. Not to communicate over email, etc. (And certainly not over a rival network.) When you add someone to your address book, you do so to communicate with them over email, or phone, or whatever, which are inherently completely open and interconnected systems. [Surely there is a debate to be had here about the ubiquity of Facebook as a platform and that it should be open - could you imagine Facebook Clients? But I dont believe that's a debate about exporting existing contact info.]
To that end, Google warning users about the terminal nature of their exported data is unnecessary and only confuses the process of finding friends for users (who, by the way, aren't thinking about data portability, or building up an address book/contacts list on Facebook, they're thinking about making Friends on Facebook, to communicate over Facebook)
TL;DR: This whole mess doesn't matter, and Google is only making things complicated for users.
Facebook is okay to be a dead-end for contacts' emails, since the email upload is used once to find others on the service. After that, if you need to contact someone else on Facebook, you can do so with a wall post or an inbox message. The email address is irrelevant.
With an address book, you need it to be portable, since the medium is accessible from many different locations and services.
The fact is that you dont need to get your friends' contact details out of Facebook. You sign up for Facebook to make Friends on Facebook and communicate over Facebook. Not to communicate over email, etc. (And certainly not over a rival network.) When you add someone to your address book, you do so to communicate with them over email, or phone, or whatever, which are inherently completely open and interconnected systems. [Surely there is a debate to be had here about the ubiquity of Facebook as a platform and that it should be open - could you imagine Facebook Clients? But I dont believe that's a debate about exporting existing contact info.]
To that end, Google warning users about the terminal nature of their exported data is unnecessary and only confuses the process of finding friends for users (who, by the way, aren't thinking about data portability, or building up an address book/contacts list on Facebook, they're thinking about making Friends on Facebook, to communicate over Facebook)
TL;DR: This whole mess doesn't matter, and Google is only making things complicated for users.
You don't need to use the email upload once either. That's the point. Google's making it clear that you getting something from them "for free" and you won't be able to go back in the future.
>The email address is irrelevant.
I disagree. My usage pattern is to use facebook to find a person, then get their email and contact them through email, since I check my email more frequently than I do my facebook. (which is almost never, since I have it send me anything important by email.)
Sure. But then Facebook doesnt really have a reason to care about you, as a non-user of their service, and keeping data locked in is their best way of keeping you coming back.
Google should also point out that if Facebook lets you export your friends' emails then your friends can do the same to your email. And that if that happens one bad or compromised friend can give yours and everyone else's emails to spammers.
Same thing can happen with Google Contacts, but the difference is that on Contacts you give out your email. On Facebook you signup with an email and then you "friend" someone.
Same thing can happen with Google Contacts, but the difference is that on Contacts you give out your email. On Facebook you signup with an email and then you "friend" someone.
It's great how they used check boxes to make the submit button appear. It makes it more likely that people will actually read the warning.
Google is being silly. First because they're breaking the usability of THEIR own site out of an invented vendetta against a company that is just using the feature they created and made available. If they don't believe people should be able to export data from Gmail they should stop offering it generally and compete against other email providers with a more closed platform, not whine about reciprocity from sites that are not in their business.
Second because they are in the wrong. The last thing in the world I want is my friends on Facebook to be able to give MY email address to random third-parties in return for free virtual pets or whatever Zynga is giving away this week. Google's moralism would mean much more spam and a far worse experience with Facebook. My being a "friend" with someone does not imply permission to let them give my contact information to third parties. Who is Google to say otherwise?
Second because they are in the wrong. The last thing in the world I want is my friends on Facebook to be able to give MY email address to random third-parties in return for free virtual pets or whatever Zynga is giving away this week. Google's moralism would mean much more spam and a far worse experience with Facebook. My being a "friend" with someone does not imply permission to let them give my contact information to third parties. Who is Google to say otherwise?
Don't get it wrong, facebook it's not protecting you against anything, they are just monopolizing your relationships so that you won't move on with ease to other services.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
Google is trying to monopolize your relationships (i.e. they give you an option while advising which option you should take), while pointing out that Facebook is monopolizing your relationships. They're taking different paths to reach the same end.
Facebook has, I assume, the ability to discern me from an app, and so easily could give me a way to export my friends contact information made visible to me while simultaneously not giving it to Farmville.
Why should anyone consider it reasonable to insist that someone else needs to create an API that selectively differentiates between users based on arbitrary and easily spoofed technical criteria? This makes no sense. It is expensive technically and expensive in terms of the development time and effort needed to maintain it. Not to mention easily fooled.
Google is keeping its data export open because it's providing an email service and is in competition with Yahoo and Hotmail. Perhaps they're not so sure about whether that is a good idea. If they think their business model has a problem they should fix the problem, not lecture Facebook about how the company runs its own business.
Google is keeping its data export open because it's providing an email service and is in competition with Yahoo and Hotmail. Perhaps they're not so sure about whether that is a good idea. If they think their business model has a problem they should fix the problem, not lecture Facebook about how the company runs its own business.
>Why should anyone consider it reasonable to insist that someone else needs to create an API that selectively differentiates between users based on arbitrary and easily spoofed technical criteria? This makes no sense. It is expensive technically and expensive in terms of the development time and effort needed to maintain it. Not to mention easily fooled.
What?
The distinction between apps and users is already very clear at every level in Facebook. I don't understand what technical issues you're talking about.
This could be an issue for people who blindly accept spam friend requests, but not for apps. Just because users get an export function doesn't automatically mean apps do as well, unless Facebook specifically implements it.
What?
The distinction between apps and users is already very clear at every level in Facebook. I don't understand what technical issues you're talking about.
This could be an issue for people who blindly accept spam friend requests, but not for apps. Just because users get an export function doesn't automatically mean apps do as well, unless Facebook specifically implements it.
And then Farmville-et-al resort to hidden iframes and screen-scraping, and there's no way for Facebook or normal users to differentiate.
"Select one or more options. Cancel and go back"
I liked this. So Godfatheresque!
I liked this. So Godfatheresque!
The other options are the check boxes. New buttons will appear when checked.
The check boxes aren't even visible in my chrome. http://imgur.com/qMpND
I don't know if this is a bug.
I don't know if this is a bug.
I am not sure if the back and forth between Google and Facebook is intriguing or just childish at this point.
Neither is doing this for the users. They are doing it to help their services grow and ultimately to help their bottom line grow. Believing anything else would be naive at this point.
Neither is doing this for the users. They are doing it to help their services grow and ultimately to help their bottom line grow. Believing anything else would be naive at this point.
As luck would have it, I picked today to set up a Facebook profile for me girlfriend. I'm now really angry with Google.
It used to be a 30 second task to sift through your address book and check off people to send friend requests to. Now, thanks to Google behaving like children, I need to figure out how to export her contacts as a text file so that I can upload it to Facebook.
Google, please stop.
You are pissing off your customers.
Edit: subsititure Users for Customers in the previous sentence if it helps you to parse it. The end result is still the same: The people who use Google's service are being punished by Google for the actions of a 3rd party.
It used to be a 30 second task to sift through your address book and check off people to send friend requests to. Now, thanks to Google behaving like children, I need to figure out how to export her contacts as a text file so that I can upload it to Facebook.
Google, please stop.
You are pissing off your customers.
Edit: subsititure Users for Customers in the previous sentence if it helps you to parse it. The end result is still the same: The people who use Google's service are being punished by Google for the actions of a 3rd party.
As opposed to Facebook simply not allowing you to export your contacts?
What if you would have picked today (or rather any other day) to set up a new gmail account for your girlfriend and needed her facebook contacts?
What if you would have picked today (or rather any other day) to set up a new gmail account for your girlfriend and needed her facebook contacts?
You can get the contacts for a facebook user through the graph api (including email, if you request the appropriate permission). This is what you get a list of when you request someone's friend list: http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/user .
Interesting, your list of contact data doesn't actually include any contact information, which is the crux of the argument.
Is Google really behaving like a child, or warning its users against childish actions? Facebook is not a dreamworld, so I'm quite happy when some people are reminded that they're submitting their friends addresses to a service that will never forget about them.
Call it what you like. They're effectively punishing their own users because they don't like a 3rd party service.
Those users, however, clearly do like that 3rd party service, and would just like to get on with setting up their account there.
Any action at all by Google during that process (other than the expected one) just makes things worse for their users. The adult thing to do, then, is to simply not do anything to make matters worse.
Those users, however, clearly do like that 3rd party service, and would just like to get on with setting up their account there.
Any action at all by Google during that process (other than the expected one) just makes things worse for their users. The adult thing to do, then, is to simply not do anything to make matters worse.
I'm not a big Facebook-fan, so I don't feel punished /at all/ when Google antagonizes the service... More like the opposite actually. That's just my opinion and I won't push for it more than this ; it's okay if we disagree. :)
I guess, if enough users would complain to Google or feel the need to leave their awesome free services for a more Facebook-friendly vendor, good for them. It's not like there's no choice since you can you know... export your data.
I guess, if enough users would complain to Google or feel the need to leave their awesome free services for a more Facebook-friendly vendor, good for them. It's not like there's no choice since you can you know... export your data.
I think that they are preventing long term problems with their business model and at the same time, in my humble opinion, preventing long term societal problems.
Expressed in greater detail here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1891167
Why aren't you mad at Facebook for not allowing the export feature which is causing this trouble? You could easily say the same thing in reverse: The people that use Facebook's services are being punished by Facebook because they don't want to open their data (as they already do with Yahoo and Hotmail). You want to know the reality of most people? When they end up at that page coming from Facebook, they'll get mad at Facebook not Google. Another reality is also the fact that most people that use both services rely on Google and are more likely to leave Facebook, than to leave Google if it came down to it.
Users in Facebook are more volatile. While Facebook is a lot more 'addictive', with time the lack of value it actually provides becomes apparent and it becomes two things for most people: an open-id provider and a distraction hub. Google offers actual value to their customers and therefore commands a sense of loyalty that Facebook doesn't get because of main issue in this fight. Opening the data Facebook collects to fair use of their customers is a big step in providing value, Facebook is just afraid that this integration might fuel competition. How very Microsoft right?
Users in Facebook are more volatile. While Facebook is a lot more 'addictive', with time the lack of value it actually provides becomes apparent and it becomes two things for most people: an open-id provider and a distraction hub. Google offers actual value to their customers and therefore commands a sense of loyalty that Facebook doesn't get because of main issue in this fight. Opening the data Facebook collects to fair use of their customers is a big step in providing value, Facebook is just afraid that this integration might fuel competition. How very Microsoft right?
Customers? How much money have you paid Google for services this year?
This argument is such an annoying fallacy. People who use Google's services are Google's "customers" in the same way people who watch television are the network's "customers". You may not be the direct source of income, but if they lose all the "non-customers" that are using their services, they're going to lose all of their advertisers, which is their direct source of income. The audience is a crucial component in a business model that depends on advertisement.
Even if it wasn't, Google opens itself to criticism and review whether their service is free or not. We definitely shouldn't temper our ideas or give Google a pass because "it's free"; that might excuse some advanced features, but it definitely doesn't extend into basics like contact exporting. That's a fundamental, and something that many have blasted Facebook, also ostensibly a "free" service, for not supporting well.
Google is making money off of Gmail. If they weren't making money off of Gmail, they would have discontinued the service a long time ago. Even if the nominal costs exceed the direct profits gained from Google Apps licenses and the display of AdWords, etc., which I tend to doubt, the indirect benefits are obviously valuable.
Should we all feel a great gratitude to the for-profit corporation Google for pursuing their best interest? Certainly we all appreciate the free services, but Google is no charity and expecting an altruistic, anything-goes attitude to their products is silly. They are a serious company making serious money and competing in a serious space, there's no need to make up excuses for them, especially naive ones like, "Well it's free anyway so you shouldn't expect anything out of it".
Even if it wasn't, Google opens itself to criticism and review whether their service is free or not. We definitely shouldn't temper our ideas or give Google a pass because "it's free"; that might excuse some advanced features, but it definitely doesn't extend into basics like contact exporting. That's a fundamental, and something that many have blasted Facebook, also ostensibly a "free" service, for not supporting well.
Google is making money off of Gmail. If they weren't making money off of Gmail, they would have discontinued the service a long time ago. Even if the nominal costs exceed the direct profits gained from Google Apps licenses and the display of AdWords, etc., which I tend to doubt, the indirect benefits are obviously valuable.
Should we all feel a great gratitude to the for-profit corporation Google for pursuing their best interest? Certainly we all appreciate the free services, but Google is no charity and expecting an altruistic, anything-goes attitude to their products is silly. They are a serious company making serious money and competing in a serious space, there's no need to make up excuses for them, especially naive ones like, "Well it's free anyway so you shouldn't expect anything out of it".
Hmmm, no. They are a valuable audience, but they are not customers. A customer is someone who pays you for a service. That is the definition.
Why do TV networks continue interrupt their "customers" with ads even though their "customers" don't want ads? That's because their "customers" are not their customers. Their customers are the people paying for those ads and they get to interrupt the "customers" with ads.
It's very important to recognize distinction the between users (aka "customers") and customers if you want your company to survive. "Customers" are the product you sell.
Why do TV networks continue interrupt their "customers" with ads even though their "customers" don't want ads? That's because their "customers" are not their customers. Their customers are the people paying for those ads and they get to interrupt the "customers" with ads.
It's very important to recognize distinction the between users (aka "customers") and customers if you want your company to survive. "Customers" are the product you sell.
A few grand, give or take. Why does that change anything?
Edit: Google charges for things like AdWords, of which I am a heavy user. So yes, people do in fact pay them money for things.
Edit: Google charges for things like AdWords, of which I am a heavy user. So yes, people do in fact pay them money for things.
Cut the snark. We all know you haven't paid a few grand for gmail this year.
This has way too many upvotes. There are _lots_ of people who pay Google money for isolated, corporate installations of Gmail and the rest of the Google Apps suite.
And whether Gmail is paid for as an explicit line-item or not isn't what matters here; most of the money that funds Gmail comes from AdWords and Google's behavior with Gmail impresses upon AdWords customers. It's all done with Google's name and image and it all reflects back on Google collectively. It's perfectly fine to feel sad when a vendor does something you don't like with a "bonus product", even if you weren't billed specifically for your usage of that product.
And whether Gmail is paid for as an explicit line-item or not isn't what matters here; most of the money that funds Gmail comes from AdWords and Google's behavior with Gmail impresses upon AdWords customers. It's all done with Google's name and image and it all reflects back on Google collectively. It's perfectly fine to feel sad when a vendor does something you don't like with a "bonus product", even if you weren't billed specifically for your usage of that product.
This is a fair point. But surely you'll agree that the free and $10-per-month users vastly outnumber the corporate and Google Apps users. And I'd bet that the OP isn't one of those corporate customers (he's now edited his post to clarify).
In any case, we aren't really arguing about anything relevant to the discussion at hand.
I happen to think that the original comment was rather trollish given that he can still export his girlfriend's contact information from gmail. He just needs to click two more times now. I think the upvotes my comment got are reflective of a similar feeling about the whole thread from other HNers.
In any case, we aren't really arguing about anything relevant to the discussion at hand.
I happen to think that the original comment was rather trollish given that he can still export his girlfriend's contact information from gmail. He just needs to click two more times now. I think the upvotes my comment got are reflective of a similar feeling about the whole thread from other HNers.
We - the customers - pay google with our attention. The transaction isn't as cut and dried as it is when money changes hands, and we don't have so much recourse to complain (and get an adequate response) but I do think we are definitely customers.
Nothing is truly 'free'.
Negation of this fact, provides companies who offer their services for 'free' with an excuse to treat their users badly.
Nothing is truly 'free'.
Negation of this fact, provides companies who offer their services for 'free' with an excuse to treat their users badly.
"As luck would have it, I picked today to set up a Facebook profile for me girlfriend."
I can't be the only one who thinks this is more than a bit weird.
I can't be the only one who thinks this is more than a bit weird.
As a prospective customer why don't you get mad at Facebook?
At the end of the day it was not google who is making this choice but Facebook. There is still a functioning API that would allow Facebook to continue allowing users to import their contacts. The problem is that they are no longer in compliance with the usage terms of this API. If it is such a problem for the customer all Facebook needs to do is move into compliance with the usage terms of this API (by allowing users to export their data from facebook) and then they can begin using the API again.
All in all I agree with Google's modification to the API usage license and really think that the ball is in Facebook's court.
Can't you just click "proceed" when you get to this page?
You don't get that page. You just get their standard oauth page, followed by an empty list when you get back to Facebook.
The warning says: "Here’s the not-so-fine print. You have been directed to this page from a site that doesn’t allow you to re-export your data to other services, essentially locking up your contact data about your friends."
I think this is misleading - Doesn't Facebook allow you to download all of your data, just like Google? As much as I dislike Facebook's privacy policies, the mudslinging seems a little thick from both sides.
Facebook and Google - two of the biggest privacy violating companies on the planet. May you live in interesting times, indeed.
I think this is misleading - Doesn't Facebook allow you to download all of your data, just like Google? As much as I dislike Facebook's privacy policies, the mudslinging seems a little thick from both sides.
Facebook and Google - two of the biggest privacy violating companies on the planet. May you live in interesting times, indeed.
Facebook to my knowledge does not let you export your friends email addresses in a way that they could be synced with your email service. I think that if they did, it would be beneficial to everyone. Their claim that email addresses are private is bogus. They could add buttons to the privacy settings that would allow a user to block their email from being access by friends. There is no valid, as in non anti competitive, reason to hold on to names and email of your Facebook friends.
I'm just waiting for Facebook to release a real email service ala gmail in the near future to escalate this battle.
I'm just waiting for Facebook to release a real email service ala gmail in the near future to escalate this battle.
You can export your friends' email addresses from Facebook to sites that they have a deal with - e.g. Yahoo Mail.
You can then export from there as CSV etc., and pull them into other services. I set up a one-time Ymail account just to try this out, and it worked just fine.
So any claims by Facebook that they can't do this due to users' privacy etc are completely bogus. It's just that Google won't give them money to do it.
You can then export from there as CSV etc., and pull them into other services. I set up a one-time Ymail account just to try this out, and it worked just fine.
So any claims by Facebook that they can't do this due to users' privacy etc are completely bogus. It's just that Google won't give them money to do it.
How much 'real-er' does FB messaging need to get?
I ask because FB messaging, like Gmail, is already available on the two platforms that matter today - web browsers and smartphones. Yeah, you need a FB account to use FB messaging, but if you don't have Facebook, you're not a real person, at least according to Quora (along with any other FB-connect only site). (Quora has since backpedaled on that stance.)
The obvious interoperability move - letting you reply-by-email to FB messages is something they'll never do, because it means you don't have to sign into FB, which they can't have.
I ask because FB messaging, like Gmail, is already available on the two platforms that matter today - web browsers and smartphones. Yeah, you need a FB account to use FB messaging, but if you don't have Facebook, you're not a real person, at least according to Quora (along with any other FB-connect only site). (Quora has since backpedaled on that stance.)
The obvious interoperability move - letting you reply-by-email to FB messages is something they'll never do, because it means you don't have to sign into FB, which they can't have.
well, they could add categorization/labels for one.
Or more concretly: the ability to receive messages from people you don't already have as contacts.
Or more concretly: the ability to receive messages from people you don't already have as contacts.
No, you can't get your "friends"' email info out.
I see, thanks for the clarification. So, you can download all of your pictures and wall posts, but not contact data.
There are several apps like this one that claim to export your friends and email address to CSV format.
http://apps.facebook.com/friendstocsv/
http://apps.facebook.com/friendstocsv/
I didn't try it, but looking at the comments, it won't export email addresses
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=32853197098&...
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=32853197098&...
I just used this link and saved my contacts, just in case this story leads to more dramatic actions. I also tested the register complaint button and, sure enough, my complaint was duly registered (though nobody explained what this means). Interestingly enough, I could have done both in one step, by checking both boxes and getting a long button reading: "download my contact information and register complaint".
This is a really clever move from Google and I think many people will read this and stop giving there data to Facebook.
I have a dump feeling about giving all of my data to Facebook cause they have sure enough.
Otherwise: it's free and they are making money with your data right?
Apparently, it's just for Facebook only.
https://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.htm...
By the link of this, one can see that only exporting to Facebook would render this confirmation message.
https://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.htm...
By the link of this, one can see that only exporting to Facebook would render this confirmation message.
Facebook could allow users to "Opt-in" an email export.
If I'm not "Opt-in", only my name would be exported by me and my friends.
We all know that Opt-in is like "does not exist", but they could at least say they are open.
edit: They could even sell it as a privacy feature ...
We all know that Opt-in is like "does not exist", but they could at least say they are open.
edit: They could even sell it as a privacy feature ...
Facebook already offers your contact information to Microsoft and Yahoo. However, I think friends who have emails set as "only me" or equivalent do not export. I tried the feature today and 10% of my contacts did not export to yahoo :/
Facebook would have to offer such a facility in order to allow users to opt-in, and there seems to be plenty of evidence that they do not want to do that.
Ironically, control of personal data ends once the data has been shared, by you or any of your friends. Terms of Service often enable a company to collect and share your data as they see fit.
Are there any publicly traded betting pool for this? I've got 10 bucks saying FB will open up their data silos (at least for Google) within the next 12 months :)
I want a page to see the total number of "complaints" Google has collected so far. Just curious as to how many people actually picked that option.
Maybe google is trying to get facebook to open up now, so it'll be in time for everyone to be able to use it to migrate to Google Me.
It allegedly registered my complaint without me being logged-in, so whatever they do, it's for show only?
This reeks of a cheap shot.
This reeks of a cheap shot.
Just because your not signed in doesn't mean it can't register a complaint - by not tracking username or personal details with the complaint the point of being signed in is reduced to nothing. They can't even make sure you do it twice without tracking your user ID (which they won't do because they could then get username or password).
Therefore being able to register a complaint not signed in seems odd but fine.
Therefore being able to register a complaint not signed in seems odd but fine.
That's the whole point I was making. When it doesn't register username or any kind of identifiable information, it just counts 'votes', which doesn't amount to anything, as in the end it's just an arbitrary number open to manipulations.
What do they want to achieve by having the user click a button just to feel good?
What do they want to achieve by having the user click a button just to feel good?
I think it would be short-sighted of Google to simply count votes without recording some sort of "authenticated" bit for later use.
Counting 'votes' provides useful data for Google internal decision-making.
Counting 'authenticated votes' provides useful data for Google to publish.
Lacking any information from Google, it is unclear whether this is just a "feel good" button or if it's an actual authenticated vote-counting system.
Counting 'votes' provides useful data for Google internal decision-making.
Counting 'authenticated votes' provides useful data for Google to publish.
Lacking any information from Google, it is unclear whether this is just a "feel good" button or if it's an actual authenticated vote-counting system.
But does it work with Orkut?
Alternate heading: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
This is such bullshit.
A service that won't let me "get my contact information out"? Nice way to frame this in terms of "openness" too, apparently riding "open" for all it's worth with Android is not enough.
Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google? No? Isn't Google "open" enough to let me do it?
We think this is an important thing for you to know before you import your data there.
Did you also think it was super duper important with a cherry and smarmy bullshit on top to let me know before you gave Facebook my GMail contacts behind the scenes when I was registering there earlier this year?
No, and I was disgusted when Facebook started suggesting them for "friends" right away.
A service that won't let me "get my contact information out"? Nice way to frame this in terms of "openness" too, apparently riding "open" for all it's worth with Android is not enough.
Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google? No? Isn't Google "open" enough to let me do it?
We think this is an important thing for you to know before you import your data there.
Did you also think it was super duper important with a cherry and smarmy bullshit on top to let me know before you gave Facebook my GMail contacts behind the scenes when I was registering there earlier this year?
No, and I was disgusted when Facebook started suggesting them for "friends" right away.
>Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google?
Mostly yes. http://www.dataliberation.org/
Mostly yes. http://www.dataliberation.org/
And Google won't be keeping a copy of anything you export or "move" out, right?
I'm not terribly interested in a chance to "get out" my data from services that will keep my data anyway.
They also did give Facebook my GMail contacts, which I thought was scuzzy, but hey that's alright as long as I can export stuff out from various Google services!
I'm not terribly interested in a chance to "get out" my data from services that will keep my data anyway.
They also did give Facebook my GMail contacts, which I thought was scuzzy, but hey that's alright as long as I can export stuff out from various Google services!
Your rant makes no sense to me. You seem to be complaining that Google has erected a confirmation page making it marginally harder to get your contact info out and then at the end complain that it was too easy before when Google let Facebook snatch it all?
Google has been giving up people's contact information (without their consent) from GMail to Facebook for a long time.
It's safe to assume Google has been getting something in return all along, but now something's changed, and they decided to make a big fuss about the whole thing.
Then they say things like:
a site that doesn’t allow you to re-export your data to other services, essentially locking up your contact data about your friends.
Locking up? --> "Open" vs "Closed" again.
So once you import your data there, you won’t be able to get it out.
I bet that most people would think of "getting something out" as removing it. They make it sound like you should be able to remove "your data" from Facebook..
you are always free to download your contacts using the export feature in Google Contacts
.. As if Google letting you export things from various Google services amounted to the same thing, which it doesn't. No matter how much you export your data, Google will still be keeping a copy of everything, so talking about "getting it out" is disingenuous.
Because, after all, you should have control over your data.
Why did Google give "my data" to Facebook without asking me, or even notifying me about it then? After several years of handing people's contact information over to FB behind the scenes, why is it suddenly important that I have control over my data? Disingenuous.
But this is all just a PR-stunt and an attack against Facebook combined. Open vs Closed again, and Google parading around as a champion of Openness and your rights, when in the end, both parties are just corporations and only interested in making money off of you and "your" data.
It's safe to assume Google has been getting something in return all along, but now something's changed, and they decided to make a big fuss about the whole thing.
Then they say things like:
a site that doesn’t allow you to re-export your data to other services, essentially locking up your contact data about your friends.
Locking up? --> "Open" vs "Closed" again.
So once you import your data there, you won’t be able to get it out.
I bet that most people would think of "getting something out" as removing it. They make it sound like you should be able to remove "your data" from Facebook..
you are always free to download your contacts using the export feature in Google Contacts
.. As if Google letting you export things from various Google services amounted to the same thing, which it doesn't. No matter how much you export your data, Google will still be keeping a copy of everything, so talking about "getting it out" is disingenuous.
Because, after all, you should have control over your data.
Why did Google give "my data" to Facebook without asking me, or even notifying me about it then? After several years of handing people's contact information over to FB behind the scenes, why is it suddenly important that I have control over my data? Disingenuous.
But this is all just a PR-stunt and an attack against Facebook combined. Open vs Closed again, and Google parading around as a champion of Openness and your rights, when in the end, both parties are just corporations and only interested in making money off of you and "your" data.
jajajaja Gmail rules!
A big middle finger to FB.
What bothers me is that Google is taking the stance that they have the right to lock my data in their service if they feel like it.
That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have to be open, only if they feel like it).
That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have to be open, only if they feel like it).
In what way is Google taking that stance? Last I checked, Google was taking the exactly opposite stance.
http://www.dataliberation.org/
http://www.dataliberation.org/
Obviously I must have phrased my position wrong, based on the reaction.
Yes, they are taking that stance, since they are imposing conditions on exporting data from gmail. If I owned and could do anything I wanted with my data on gmail, then Google could not impose restrictions. They just did (in their API restrictions). That's what I'm very concerned about.
Yes, they are taking that stance, since they are imposing conditions on exporting data from gmail. If I owned and could do anything I wanted with my data on gmail, then Google could not impose restrictions. They just did (in their API restrictions). That's what I'm very concerned about.
Well, I want an API where I can get all my Gmail messages with their metadata, all formatted as Clojure maps. Is Google imposing restrictions on me because nobody has bothered implementing that? Not really. It's analogous.
As long as Google provides ways to get all your data that are free, public, easy to parse, and well-documented, they aren't imposing restrictions. If they add extra APIs or additional formats on top of that, it's gravy. Remember, the point of having these exports is to be able to get your data out and switch from service to service, so that the market stays competitive. It's not so that you have a fully-automated Google API for your profile that other programs can interact with.
As long as Google provides ways to get all your data that are free, public, easy to parse, and well-documented, they aren't imposing restrictions. If they add extra APIs or additional formats on top of that, it's gravy. Remember, the point of having these exports is to be able to get your data out and switch from service to service, so that the market stays competitive. It's not so that you have a fully-automated Google API for your profile that other programs can interact with.
This sounds to me like arguing over whether BSD is more free than GPL. Google made it difficult (but still not impossible) for other services to gain access to your contacts data if those services are unwilling to reciprocate. The goal of this is obviously to incentivize companies to allow you to export your data from them (which increases competition and is better for the consumer). There is still nothing stopping you from exporting your contacts to a CSV and importing them elsewhere.
The csv is always available. This didn't affect that at all. I don't think they are obligated to provide export in every way you'd prefer, as long as they provide a standard and widely understood format.
That'd require government control. Since there is no government agency that can forbid Facebook from trapping your data, Google is trying to use its position to do so. I think it's very fair.
This will slow down my AOL-using friends who gave away all their contact info to Facebook and now I get pelted with spam from Facebook using my name and list of friends (and I don't even have a Facebook account).
Google has never spammed me or share my name and location, Facebook does it all the time, pick who's more evil.