Google points finger at Facebook hypocrisy, blocks Gmail import

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/google-points-finger-at-facebook-hypocrisy-blocks-gmail-import.ars

by yanw • 16 years ago

68 57 16 years ago

Where is that open-source MapReduce stack? Facebook even gives their HPHP, Hadoop, and other code back to the community for free. The fact is, Facebook cares about Data & Google cares about technology. Google has just perfected making other companies look bad, while Facebook has the attitude of "let's keep working on our features".

tobtoh3• 16 years ago

You've missed what this issue is about and in fact you have the situation back to front. HPHP, Hadoop and other code is technology which is what Facebook is 'caring' about. Google is concerned about data - making sure that our personal data is ours to move around as we want, not when/how Facebook, Google or any other company wants.

In Google's eyes, our personal data should be portable (but under our control) and hence why they advocate openness. Google already does by allowing sites like Facebook to connect via APIs to access your contacts list and find other friends to invite to Facebook. Facebook however doesn't allow any other company to do a similar arrangement.

Google open, Facebook not. Google should be absolutely supported in their position - it will lead to be a better Net for all of us.

rbarooah6• 16 years ago

Except that this story is about Google becoming less open in an attempt to coerce a competitor into changing their behavior.

Google has taken away freedom from it's users to do as they want with their data (i.e. transfer it unidirectionally to Facebook). This is a fact.

So we have a clear example of Google choosing to control users data when it suits them. They claim they are doing this to try to force Facebook to become more open and that they are doing it on behalf of the users, but does anyone seriously think that's the only reason behind this decision?

Google has stated that they want access to Facebook's social graph and that they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by Facebook. They obviously want this for competitive reasons, and to pretend that this isn't part of their motivation seems disingenuous to me.

And that's why this isn't as clear-cut as it seems. I personally think it would be good for users if Facebook's API did expose the social graph, but isn't it hypocrisy of Google to claim they are different while at the very same time holding user-data hostage?

The ends do not justify the means, particularly if the means are compromising the very principles you claim to uphold.

If open truly always wins, they wouldn't need to try to force Facebook to open up under terms dictated by Google. Google opens up data at their own pace - why shouldn't Facebook do the same?

modeless• 16 years ago

Sorry, but if you're comparing open source contributions, Google wins by any metric. Consider Chromium, V8, Android, WebM, GWT, Protocol buffers, the Closure Javascript library+compiler+linter, and jillions of other projects (http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google), not to mention the tremendous support they've given Mozilla over the years, their work in defining and promoting open standards like HTML5, plus indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program.

kingkilr• 16 years ago

> indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program.

That's indirect?!? It's basically a strait up $5 million a year investment in open source.

kmavm3• 16 years ago

By "any metric"? How about, "lines of open source contributed per engineer-year"? Google is 10 times larger than Facebook, and has been around for twice as long. You would expect it to have a longer list of open source contributions no matter what.

mfukar• 16 years ago

There's also a huge area which everyone's discounting: research. In it, Google is a beast with some major contributions and hundreds of publications, while Facebook doesn't even exist.

swombat• 16 years ago

Neither company is open to releasing stuff that is, basically, its secret sauce that it makes money from.

Google makes money from their page ranking algorithm and their ad-placing algorithms, which they use to sell your attention to advertisers. You'll never see them open those up.

Facebook makes money from your personal data and connections, which they directly sell to advertisers and other partners. You'll never see them open that up.

jeffreymcmanus• 16 years ago

Safe to say the cow is out of the barn here; if Google wanted to have an impact they'd have done this two years ago. How many people in industrialized countries don't yet have Facebook accounts? Like four?

chopsueyar• 16 years ago

Me.

tiagok• 16 years ago

I agree. But I also think this action has to do with the launching of the Google Me (Google's competitor to Facebook).

yanw2• 16 years ago

I think it's more about sending a message here.

Seth_Kriticos2• 16 years ago

I guess I'm one of that four than. I had one briefly, but I never grew sympathetic of them. I deleted it a few weeks later, Facebook is just too creepy in their way of data handling.

pat2man• 16 years ago

I don't think you can actually delete a Facebook account. It still exists somewhere...

pak3• 16 years ago

If you had one, you had one, and it's in their heap somewhere waiting to be mined. All they did was turn off the visibility flags. The only way is to never have an account... lucky me.

codefisher• 16 years ago

So far we have 3 of the 4 people post here. Can the last one own up? Or did someone underestimate how many people don't have a facebook account...

Natsu• 16 years ago

Then I guess I'd be the lucky #4. Incidentally, my brother was a hold-out, too, until last month or so.

btilly• 16 years ago

I make it 5. Never created an account with them.

gord2• 16 years ago

It seems the 'introduce friends' feature should be an open standard - in the same way hopefully OAuth2 will solve reciprocal login credential validation.

patrickaljord• 16 years ago

http://portablecontacts.net/draft-spec.html

gord2• 16 years ago

reference implementation ?

chunkbot• 16 years ago

I don't like Google putting artificial restrictions on what I can do with my data.

But I also prefer permissive Apache/BSD/MIT licenses to GNU GPL, so maybe that's just me.

chrisbroadfoot• 16 years ago

AFAIK - This is not about the user. It's about other web services interfacing with those APIs.

richardw• 16 years ago

The issue here should rather be "I don't like Facebook putting artificial restrictions on what I can do with my data."

FB restrictions > Google restrictions

dman2• 16 years ago

So now its - "its okay to be evil to fight evil" ? I thought googles stance on data portability was that its a good thing and that the users data basically belongs to them. I would guess most users setting up an account at service bar would be interested in importing their existing contacts / settings from service foo that they already use.

yanw2• 16 years ago

Thats still stands, you can export your data as you see fit, and other services that provide data portability can use the API, those who don't (Facebook) can't.

sandipc• 16 years ago

I would say this is more of a Facebook limitation.

You can still export your Gmail contacts... just not to automatically to Facebook (unless Facebook starts allowing easy export of its own data... which is the bigger problem right now, IMO).

dman2• 16 years ago

When google said in the past that users are free to take their data and leave, I dont remember any caveats being in place. Whether they leave to join a idyllic commune or a kleptocratic dictatorship imo their data should freely go with them.

RtodaAV• 16 years ago

I deleted my facebook account a long time ago.

robryan• 16 years ago

People tend to like Google to keep to standards that would only make sense as a not for profit. Sure data portability is a good thing but when in specific instances your helping your competitor without them giving up anything it doesn't make sense.

I doubt shareholders would really want Google to sit back and give up the game on social.

joe_the_user• 16 years ago

Not me,

I want Google to be the bare-knuckles, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners winner - for good.

In this case, it seems like they are currently doing the right thing.

Demanding reciprocity is the right thing for data portability. It's like the GPL is more restrictive license than the BSD license - and the best license for software freedom.

rbarooah6• 16 years ago

People only hold Google to those standards because Google positions themselves as a champion of openness and user's rights.

As you point out, these standards may not be entirely realistic for a for-profit company operating in a very competitive space.

Google therefore must either take the risk that their standards will actually make them into a stronger company, or gradually compromise them for competitive advantage.

The problem with the compromise approach is that it undermines trust even more than if they'd never held themselves to such high standards in the first place, and that's where the backlash comes from.

cma• 16 years ago

Microsoft took a different approach in the 90's and ended up shackled by governments; I'm not so sure Google's shareholders would ignore that in their profitability calculations regarding the different approaches.

known• 16 years ago

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking

DjDarkman• 16 years ago

Facebook plays dirty and now they got a little dirt thrown back at them, and I think they deserve it, because they are giving Microsoft the advantage by integrating with Bing. I'm happy that there is search engine competition, but not letting Google do the same is simply unfair.

Google points finger at Facebook hypocrisy, blocks Gmail import

Related Stories