The Great Wall of Facebook(wired.com)
wired.com
The Great Wall of Facebook
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-07/ff_facebookwall?currentPage=all
12 comments
They made it extremely difficult to delete an account before.
That's an interesting point. How you ever tried to delete your search history at Google? One of the main differences between the two that I see is that everything Facebook knows about you, you have to explicitly tell it. Google quietly logs everything you search for and you don't even notice.
That's an interesting point. How you ever tried to delete your search history at Google? One of the main differences between the two that I see is that everything Facebook knows about you, you have to explicitly tell it. Google quietly logs everything you search for and you don't even notice.
Deleting your search history at Google is like three clicks (Web History | Remove Items | Clear entire Web History ) -- however, I've never done this, since I like being able to browse my search history. Now, of course, Google could be keeping the data around even though you've elected to delete it, or may be attempting to anonymize it to use it for a different purpose, but that's another issue.
Yeah I've seen this - but the EU's dispute with Google is that they keep history for 2 years regardless, so that implies that clearing your history is merely cosmetic.
That implication neither confirms nor denies the "difficulty" of deleting your search history; three clicks means it's as difficult to delete your search history as it is to move a file to the recycle bin in Windows and empty it. Fact is, you can't confirm that it gets deleted, whatever that exactly means, no matter what the UI is, but that has nothing to do with the ease of finding or using the delete functionality.
However, does the fact that a cosmetic delete function exists say that Google wants to allow you to actually delete something or just wants you to think that you are deleting something, and is this better or worse than Facebook, which doesn't even have a cosmetic interface to do so, other than perhaps removing your account all together, and has established and known TOS that say they can do whatever they want with the data you give them?
However, does the fact that a cosmetic delete function exists say that Google wants to allow you to actually delete something or just wants you to think that you are deleting something, and is this better or worse than Facebook, which doesn't even have a cosmetic interface to do so, other than perhaps removing your account all together, and has established and known TOS that say they can do whatever they want with the data you give them?
I don't see how that is another issue. Either they get rid of your data or they don't. If you've ever worked with data at that scale, you'll know how hard it is to keep any sort of promise to actually purge it from all systems.
Seriously, I don't think it should be that hard to purge user data, unless it has already been assimilated/linked to other user statistics.
That's Facebook's issue; if you delete your account, photos you've tagged remain tagged, messages you've sent remain in people's inboxes, groups you've created still exist, and so on. Google doesn't have anywhere near that level of linking between users.
While some may insist that once you delete your Facebook account, messages you've sent and are in others' inboxes, groups you have created, tagging on photos (actually do they, at least does the UI indicate who tagged?) should be deleted, I think it is actually reasonable to expect:
When I delete my account, any files (photos) I have uploaded are deleted. I don't care if I tagged someone in another photo which I didn't upload, it's their name there, not mine. If a message I sent is in someone's inbox, I obviously don't have any control (actually it depends, but let's take it this way).
It's like if I deleted my email account, I expect my inbox to be deleted, not an email I sent, which is in someone elses inbox.
When I delete my account, any files (photos) I have uploaded are deleted. I don't care if I tagged someone in another photo which I didn't upload, it's their name there, not mine. If a message I sent is in someone's inbox, I obviously don't have any control (actually it depends, but let's take it this way).
It's like if I deleted my email account, I expect my inbox to be deleted, not an email I sent, which is in someone elses inbox.
It's not just that though. At all large organizations handling data, it is processed into several databases, statistics, aggregations, archives. There aren't any systems that can keep track of all this and purge all the data correctly.
Probably not if you have a static IP.
Don't forget Facebook likely tracks things like whose profiles you view and other activity. It's no secret they attempt to rank your friends to determine whose updates you are more likely to be interested in, etc (some bugs have revealed this, google for "facebook stalk list").
In that sense they quietly log things that you may not even notice. Facebook can know a lot more about you than just what you explicitly write in your profile.
In that sense they quietly log things that you may not even notice. Facebook can know a lot more about you than just what you explicitly write in your profile.
I cant agree more.
Why I say I cant trust Facebook? Would you trust a company that spams you, with the intent of you signing up?
I receive at least once a month a mail from a facebook.com address. The mail contains some people names (mostly female, coincidence?) saying that this persons have profiles at facebook and that they are friends of mine (I know no one).
Perhaps theres some guy with my same name.
Either case this an annoying marketing technique!
pd1. I can post the mails if you want. pd2. These are not the standard direct invitations that I also receive from them via some friend of me.
pd1. I can post the mails if you want. pd2. These are not the standard direct invitations that I also receive from them via some friend of me.
I felt comfortable with Google up until the Reader fiasco and how they dealt with it.
That said, I'm significantly less comfortable with Facebook.
That said, I'm significantly less comfortable with Facebook.
What was the Reader fiasco?
Google Reader is Google's feed reader, and its users can choose to share items that they read. The sharing is/was done by clicking "Share" on relevant items in your feeds, and you could give other people a unique URL (containing random looking characters, possibly just an obfuscation of your username, who knows) and they could check your shared items or even subscribe to them.
People used it for all kinds of things - political news pieces for likeminded friends, some spouses shared raunchy things, some dude even made it part of his business.
One day Google decided that all of your friends should be able to see your shared items. And that your friends are everyone you've ever sent email to from your gmail account. This caused a bit of anguish for a fair few people - family rifts, job issues, etc...
The official workaround was to either unshare the items or delete people from your contacts list. Sometime after that they added the ability to not have everyone you've every contacted be your friend, and now I believe there's an option to opt-in to the feature and then select who gets to see it.
No trace of an apology to anyone, and the thread of angry people in the reader google group basically got admonished for believing that the pseudorandom looking URL that only the user had access to in anyway implied that the data was private. If the shared page was www.google.com/readers/[username] that'd be fair enough I guess.
For some people it was as big a deal as making everyones email readable by any and all, and there wasn't any kind of official response that acknowledged it was a misstep, let alone apologizing.
I figured since it was around a month after the Beacon fiasco at Facebook that they'd decided that an apology would get them bad PR and so they just ignored the upset people. I switched to Bloglines, and I imagine quite a few of the people who were effected by or noticed what happened did as well.
People used it for all kinds of things - political news pieces for likeminded friends, some spouses shared raunchy things, some dude even made it part of his business.
One day Google decided that all of your friends should be able to see your shared items. And that your friends are everyone you've ever sent email to from your gmail account. This caused a bit of anguish for a fair few people - family rifts, job issues, etc...
The official workaround was to either unshare the items or delete people from your contacts list. Sometime after that they added the ability to not have everyone you've every contacted be your friend, and now I believe there's an option to opt-in to the feature and then select who gets to see it.
No trace of an apology to anyone, and the thread of angry people in the reader google group basically got admonished for believing that the pseudorandom looking URL that only the user had access to in anyway implied that the data was private. If the shared page was www.google.com/readers/[username] that'd be fair enough I guess.
For some people it was as big a deal as making everyones email readable by any and all, and there wasn't any kind of official response that acknowledged it was a misstep, let alone apologizing.
I figured since it was around a month after the Beacon fiasco at Facebook that they'd decided that an apology would get them bad PR and so they just ignored the upset people. I switched to Bloglines, and I imagine quite a few of the people who were effected by or noticed what happened did as well.
I suppose that I'm kind of an old fart, because Facebook reminds me powerfully of AOL. They are both walled gardens.
While at one point AOL was powerful and rich enough to purchase Time Warner. AOL still hangs on, a shell of what it once was. The main difference, is that AOL had a clear monetization strategy: it charged its users for access. And, it made craploads of money because it simplified computers and getting online for millions of people.
Facebook does a similar thing. It allows people to do interesting things with their computers without having to worry about the dark and scary bits of the internet.
Us older people remember the devastation that occured when AOL unlocked the gate it's walled garden to let people access the internet at large. It's know as the eternal September. Finally, when AOL's users got tech savvy enough to use the wild internet without AOL's hand holding, they left in droves.
I suspect similar things are going to happen to Facebook users. I could be wrong.
While at one point AOL was powerful and rich enough to purchase Time Warner. AOL still hangs on, a shell of what it once was. The main difference, is that AOL had a clear monetization strategy: it charged its users for access. And, it made craploads of money because it simplified computers and getting online for millions of people.
Facebook does a similar thing. It allows people to do interesting things with their computers without having to worry about the dark and scary bits of the internet.
Us older people remember the devastation that occured when AOL unlocked the gate it's walled garden to let people access the internet at large. It's know as the eternal September. Finally, when AOL's users got tech savvy enough to use the wild internet without AOL's hand holding, they left in droves.
I suspect similar things are going to happen to Facebook users. I could be wrong.
Some call it a walled garden; some call it privacy settings. I hear the "walled garden" criticism all the time, but I've never really understood it. What would make Facebook not a walled garden to you, while still giving users control of what information they want to share with which people?
Another obstacle I think Facebook will eventually run into is the fact that social graphs, to me at least, seem fairly static. I am not a celebrity, and for me, literally ALL of my Facebook friends are people I know in real life.
While it is interesting to learn new tidbits of information about them, I am also very aware of the fact that, for instance, none of them live in Mountain View. If I decided I wanted to move there, the first thing I would do is turn to Google to learn about real-estate, utilities, getting a driver's license, etc. I don't quite see how placing the constraints of a social graph on top of a search for unknown information will make that search more useful. When stepping into uncharted territory, I don't want artificial limitations on what I find.
While it is interesting to learn new tidbits of information about them, I am also very aware of the fact that, for instance, none of them live in Mountain View. If I decided I wanted to move there, the first thing I would do is turn to Google to learn about real-estate, utilities, getting a driver's license, etc. I don't quite see how placing the constraints of a social graph on top of a search for unknown information will make that search more useful. When stepping into uncharted territory, I don't want artificial limitations on what I find.
One of the odd things about the social graphs for me is that I have multiple distinct social graphs that overlap little if at all. I expect there are many people that want to really be sure they are keeping their work, personal, and family lives separate.
For example, my high school friends probably hate my updates about programming and computer topics. And honestly I don't care much about their trip to the river.
On the other hand, my more professional friends (who I don't interact with on twitter) could care less that I'm walking the dog but are happy to chat about programming.
For that reason I have multiple communities: Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, HN. They each have different social graphs and I discuss different things with each of them. Facebook's is trying to connect to these other sites to connect usernames to Facebook profiles, but I'm not sure I want all that going back to the same place.
For example, my high school friends probably hate my updates about programming and computer topics. And honestly I don't care much about their trip to the river.
On the other hand, my more professional friends (who I don't interact with on twitter) could care less that I'm walking the dog but are happy to chat about programming.
For that reason I have multiple communities: Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, HN. They each have different social graphs and I discuss different things with each of them. Facebook's is trying to connect to these other sites to connect usernames to Facebook profiles, but I'm not sure I want all that going back to the same place.
Robert Scoble has an interesting perspective on the ambitions of Facebook.
"Phase 1. Harvard only.
Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.
Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.
Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).
Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.
Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.
Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph."
http://scobleizer.com/2009/03/21/why-facebook-has-never-list...
"Phase 1. Harvard only.
Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.
Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.
Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).
Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.
Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.
Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph."
http://scobleizer.com/2009/03/21/why-facebook-has-never-list...
His killer point is right here:
Yes, we’re having another baby. But look at what did NOT happen on Twitter: not a single diaper company contacted us yet. Not a single maternity clothing company. Not a single car company (yes, we’re going to buy a new one soon). Not a single camera company (already bought a new one for this occassion). Not a single insurance company (I need more). Not a single bank (I need to start saving for another college student). Not a single stroller company (need a new one that can hold two). Not a single vitamin company (Maryam is going through her prenatal vitamins at a good clip). Not a single shoe company (Maryam needs new shoes for pregnancy, and Milan is growing fast too).
That will NOT last.
Yes, we’re having another baby. But look at what did NOT happen on Twitter: not a single diaper company contacted us yet. Not a single maternity clothing company. Not a single car company (yes, we’re going to buy a new one soon). Not a single camera company (already bought a new one for this occassion). Not a single insurance company (I need more). Not a single bank (I need to start saving for another college student). Not a single stroller company (need a new one that can hold two). Not a single vitamin company (Maryam is going through her prenatal vitamins at a good clip). Not a single shoe company (Maryam needs new shoes for pregnancy, and Milan is growing fast too).
That will NOT last.
Interesting read. However, there's one reason why Facebook and similar social networking applications fail for me, and I'm wondering just how many (or how few) people have the same problem. Consider Scoble's words:
You pull out your iPhone or Palm Pre or Android or Blackberry or Windows Mobile doohickey and click open the Facebook application. Then you type "sushi near me."
It answers back "within walking distance are two sushi restaurants that more than 20 of your friends have liked."
So far, there hasn't been a single social app I tried that managed to give me useful information like that. Why? Because they don't offer me a good way to differentiate and they don't learn. For these apps, all contacts in my network are the same and there's no way to teach them otherwise. On Facebook, I'm "friends" with:
1) People I see daily at work and we're friendly to each other.
2) People I've met in the past few years and we've been friendly back then but now were out of touch.
3) People from my ground school and high school, whom I haven't seen in more than 20 years.
4) A few relatives.
5) A few people with whom I have a lasting friendship.
Depending on what kind of "friend" my contact is, I would treat their recommendations of sushi restaurants differently. The same thing happens to me on the Goodreads site. I've found many great books there, but every time I had to search for hours.
I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone finally does it right, but I just wanted to point out what I find to be missing. And I'm really wondering whether other people feel the same or I'm just too damn picky...
You pull out your iPhone or Palm Pre or Android or Blackberry or Windows Mobile doohickey and click open the Facebook application. Then you type "sushi near me."
It answers back "within walking distance are two sushi restaurants that more than 20 of your friends have liked."
So far, there hasn't been a single social app I tried that managed to give me useful information like that. Why? Because they don't offer me a good way to differentiate and they don't learn. For these apps, all contacts in my network are the same and there's no way to teach them otherwise. On Facebook, I'm "friends" with:
1) People I see daily at work and we're friendly to each other.
2) People I've met in the past few years and we've been friendly back then but now were out of touch.
3) People from my ground school and high school, whom I haven't seen in more than 20 years.
4) A few relatives.
5) A few people with whom I have a lasting friendship.
Depending on what kind of "friend" my contact is, I would treat their recommendations of sushi restaurants differently. The same thing happens to me on the Goodreads site. I've found many great books there, but every time I had to search for hours.
I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone finally does it right, but I just wanted to point out what I find to be missing. And I'm really wondering whether other people feel the same or I'm just too damn picky...
I don't know if Facebook has this feature (probably), but on Orkut you can assign friends to Groups, like Family, Co-Workers, Best Friends, etc...
It would probably solve your problem if an option to "Only consider the opinion of these Groups" were present. Of course, we'll fall into the problem of how noteworthy their opinions are depending on the subject. While I would trust my middle brother expertise on digital cameras, the youngest in the house is a chef, so each one should weight differently.
Something so complete will never happen (never is a dangerous word), because that would require other people to constantly input information like "I trust Gustavo's opinion on digital cameras", and even that isn't enough, because my brother is a professional photographer, and isn't the best person to ask if you want a cheap camera.
So, I don't think any of these "other people you know liked XYZ" will manage to give you things that you'll probably like (I enjoy different types of japanese food than my brother, for example), but they will help you socialize more. You'll at least know that your friend went to some restaurant, and tell him later about your experience.
It would probably solve your problem if an option to "Only consider the opinion of these Groups" were present. Of course, we'll fall into the problem of how noteworthy their opinions are depending on the subject. While I would trust my middle brother expertise on digital cameras, the youngest in the house is a chef, so each one should weight differently.
Something so complete will never happen (never is a dangerous word), because that would require other people to constantly input information like "I trust Gustavo's opinion on digital cameras", and even that isn't enough, because my brother is a professional photographer, and isn't the best person to ask if you want a cheap camera.
So, I don't think any of these "other people you know liked XYZ" will manage to give you things that you'll probably like (I enjoy different types of japanese food than my brother, for example), but they will help you socialize more. You'll at least know that your friend went to some restaurant, and tell him later about your experience.
I agree that current social networking applications fail at real world search at the moment, but what is preventing Facebook from adding a search component which searches the broader internet and uses information about your friends, interests, and activities to provide better results? It seems like Facebook has access to a boat load of information about you that Google doesn't have.
Google has lots of information about past searches, browsing history, etc, but it lacks personal information such as the organization you are currently working for or your favorite TV shows and bands (or in the case of many of us, our favorite blogs and programming languages).
Google has lots of information about past searches, browsing history, etc, but it lacks personal information such as the organization you are currently working for or your favorite TV shows and bands (or in the case of many of us, our favorite blogs and programming languages).
There are apps like that. I've worked on a facebook/iPhone app exactly like that. Problem is that they don't get popular. It's the social game apps and similar trivial things that do well on facebook & social networks. You got to realize what people use facebook for. And there is a bit of a chicken and egg review db problem there. You got to get 20 of your friends to start using the "Food" app hardcore.
What I really find interesting in this article is how some of the Facebookers are already considering Google as a Big Brother of Online world and in most cases, It is. I think Google is to Today's startups what IBM was to 70's & 80's Startups and Microsoft was to 90's Startups, a Gigantic and Monopolistic enemy to fight against.
they(Google) don't think Facebook's staff has the brainpower to succeed where they have failed. "If they found a way to monetize all of a sudden, sure, that would be a problem," says one highly placed Google executive. "But they're not going to."
This is the same kind of Arrogant and cocky attitude which made IBM irrelevant in PC market, Microsoft irrelevant in Online market and Maybe Google in Advertising. History repeats Itself every decade, atleast in Technology.
they(Google) don't think Facebook's staff has the brainpower to succeed where they have failed. "If they found a way to monetize all of a sudden, sure, that would be a problem," says one highly placed Google executive. "But they're not going to."
This is the same kind of Arrogant and cocky attitude which made IBM irrelevant in PC market, Microsoft irrelevant in Online market and Maybe Google in Advertising. History repeats Itself every decade, atleast in Technology.
"Google is to Today's startups what IBM was to 70's & 80's Startups and Microsoft was to 90's Startups, a Gigantic and Monopolistic enemy to fight against."
That argument makes no sense, especially in comparison to facebook. Google is a set of disconnected services that you can take or leave. You don't like google search or gmail or google maps or google news? Go ahead and use something else. For any service that doesn't require immediate personalization, you don't even need to sign up ever. Even if every single person you interact with uses google search or gmail, it doesn't matter because you have no obligation to use it. As a developer, if you hate google and don't want to use anything by the company all you have to think about is SEO, most of which is basically common sense and regular marketing on non-google sites. Why would you possibly even need to consider "fight[ing] against" google unless you were directly competing?
In contrast, Facebook explicitly wants to be THE monolithic dominating force on the internet. You can't even use it without signing up and joining the whole Facebook thing. If everyone you know is using it, you end up missing out; it's basically vendor lock-in for your entire social life. And as a developer, interacting with Facebook in any meaningful way means dealing with Facebook every step of the way.
Monolithic platforms like Facebook are truly awful. Facebook is defined by locking people into the platform while Google joins together disparate web services and competes on quality and brand recognition. Google has its problems, but Facebook's problems are right at the core of everything it does.
That argument makes no sense, especially in comparison to facebook. Google is a set of disconnected services that you can take or leave. You don't like google search or gmail or google maps or google news? Go ahead and use something else. For any service that doesn't require immediate personalization, you don't even need to sign up ever. Even if every single person you interact with uses google search or gmail, it doesn't matter because you have no obligation to use it. As a developer, if you hate google and don't want to use anything by the company all you have to think about is SEO, most of which is basically common sense and regular marketing on non-google sites. Why would you possibly even need to consider "fight[ing] against" google unless you were directly competing?
In contrast, Facebook explicitly wants to be THE monolithic dominating force on the internet. You can't even use it without signing up and joining the whole Facebook thing. If everyone you know is using it, you end up missing out; it's basically vendor lock-in for your entire social life. And as a developer, interacting with Facebook in any meaningful way means dealing with Facebook every step of the way.
Monolithic platforms like Facebook are truly awful. Facebook is defined by locking people into the platform while Google joins together disparate web services and competes on quality and brand recognition. Google has its problems, but Facebook's problems are right at the core of everything it does.
Facebook explicitly wants to be THE monolithic dominating force on the internet. You can't even use it without signing up and joining the whole Facebook thing.
It is the new AOL.
I'm still waiting for the "Internet" of social networking sites to come along and make Facebook, MySpace, etc. things of the proprietary past.
It is the new AOL.
I'm still waiting for the "Internet" of social networking sites to come along and make Facebook, MySpace, etc. things of the proprietary past.
"Nobody has the data we have." is somewhat hyperbole. Gmail has more info about me than Facebook will anytime soon. I am confident that Facebook will build a great business. However, this article read like something cooked up by PR firm wanting to paint Facebook vs Google as the next Apple vs. IBM. It's a half baked analogy at best.
I agree. Facebook's data on me is not of a particularly good quality. Most of my "friends" are former colleagues or school friends. I wouldn't trust any of them to recommend a restarunt any more then I would trust 300 anonymous reviews on an independant restarunt listings site.
I don't think I've ever seen Facebook go after Google so aggressively before - the "surveillance society" language actually made me whistle under my breath.
I thought that some of the potshots that Facebook engineers took at Google engineers sounded a bit radical, not to mention just... rude.
I'm sure that Facebook works on and solves some interesting problems, but to act like what they do is harder than what Google has accomplished? C'mon now.
I've yet to read an article about Facebook in which Zuckerberg doesn't come off like a jerk
I'm sure that Facebook works on and solves some interesting problems, but to act like what they do is harder than what Google has accomplished? C'mon now.
I've yet to read an article about Facebook in which Zuckerberg doesn't come off like a jerk
I'm not a big fan of either of these companies, so I find myself agreeing with the criticisms from both sides. In today's environment, advertising can obviously be tremendously profitable, and advertising is what the businesses of both Facebook and Google boil down to. But the idea of pushing more and more largely useless crap on people doesn't really interest me, even if it's profitable. (But then, what most people do on Facebook all day doesn't really interest me, either.)
One thing I'd never heard before:
at least 9 percent of facebook's staff used to work for google
Wouldn't it be nice if the need for a centralized, advertising-driven web business were removed from our social graph(s)? It would not take much for a distributed, node based plugin system to house personal sites and friends lists etc. Then we wouldn't feel so constrained by one monolithic corporation that inherently is going to have pressures concerning business revenue, government influence, executive dynasty, et al. My guess is long term we will take ownership of ourselves back.
It would not take much for a distributed, node based plugin system to house personal sites and friends lists etc.
Do you know, I think Opera might agree with you here. Except now they've started it, everyone's laughing at them.
Do you know, I think Opera might agree with you here. Except now they've started it, everyone's laughing at them.
Regardless of their ambitions, it's fun for me to see companies in different verticals go after each other. That's where interesting innovation can happen. This is far better to read than another "Google search-engine killer."
wait, if facebook becomes the internet, will i be marginalized for not having any friends?
Facebook has never shown itself to be trustworthy. They continually try and control their users data. They made it extremely difficult to delete an account before. Most of their ad providers seems sleazy and trying to trick you. Their stupid 3rd party apps get who knows how much access to your profile, completely unregulated by Facebook. Not to mention them secretly changing terms of service and the like.
I feel comfortable with Google. I never feel comfortable with Facebook.