FaceBook, Google and Sharing Social Data: Who Has Control?

Leslie Poston,

on May 19, 2008,

FaceBook stirred up a heap of trouble when Google's newest service, FriendConnect, went live and wasn't accepted on the FaceBook site. For a company that has thus far resisted being bought by Microsoft, FaceBook certainly has similar proprietary attitudes to user data. This has been apparent since they first got called on the carpet for not wanting heavy users like Scoble to port their data to aggregators like Plaxo.

Now FaceBook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making noises that he wants to "talk" with Google about possibly working together. He is claiming that "privacy issues" are keeping FaceBook from accepting Google's FriendConnect as is. To his credit, his argument against Google's FriendConnect is remaining consistent with his arguments against sites like Orkut and Plaxo from earlier this year.

It certainly seems that FaceBook has more of an issue with the third party aggregators than with certain numbers of friends (the current limit is 5,000 friends, a limit that would be far exceeded by power users like Gary Vaynerchuk and Robert Scoble) or with porting data. They seem to be working hard to keep as much use on the site as possible, even if that isn't what there user base necessarily wants.

The issue of data portability, data location and the conversation of the social web has been a hot button one lately. Users like Scoble, who are more interested in the status of being talked about and/or with than how the conversation location might affect the originating blog or site, are all about services like FriendFeed and Disqus. Bloggers without that much time on their hands to spend tracking the scattered web are looking for ways to either keep conversation centralized or track it better without giving up control of it.

FaceBook seems intent on keeping a lock down on data control. I can't say I blame them - as the web gets more and more scattered and noisy, being able to keep your user base centralized and focused without sacrificing usability is important. Unfortunately, with a vocal minority with the kind of pull that Scoble and others have are screaming for you to let go of their data, at some point something will have to give.

FaceBook has come out and said that it is Google's potential third party integration that is their sticking point. As Zuckerberg said at a conference this week: "Part of the issue with Google's Friend Connect is that when users grant access to Google's product, Google might share their information with another application, or some part of it, maybe not all of it, without that user knowing. And part of what makes our system work is that people know exactly who they are sharing all their information with."

Google's FriendConnect has already received comparisons to FaceBook's existing FaceBook Connect and MySpace's similar service, Data Availability. Google has repeatedly denied the comparison, saying that their service is different, and claiming development time for being last in line to roll out. It will be interesting to follow the potential talks between Google and FaceBook and see if FaceBook can get Google to bend to their will and make FriendConnect a more private service in order to work on FaceBook.

The Zuckerberg Patent Application: Another Seed in the Walled Garden?

Data Portability Google and Facebook Style: Which One Will Webmasters Choose?

Facebook’s Impending Lawsuit

If Robert Scoble Is Right, Then Web 2.0 Is Dead

5 Comments (Subscribe to rss)

Ian Hendry - May 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm PDT

It is easy to be high and mighty on a matter like this, but as CEO of a business focused social networking in UK, I have a slightly more pragmatic and perhaps realistic view.

First off, signing up to a service like Facebook lets you achieve certain things which would have been hard to achieve without it. This is, in part, due to its proprietary features. To expect to do all of what that site enables you to do elsewhere is perhaps unrealistic. I think this is the point Zuckerberg is actually trying to make when it comes to the security and privacy settings Facebook gives you, as once your data is out on Google Friend Connect it becomes harder for Facebook to tell you what is happening with it and get your permission as to whether that is OK. But it also applies to the friends you have acquired who, on Facebook specifically, have given you certain grants as to what you can see and do which become harder to honour if you are taking that data elsewhere.

Secondly, as interesting as Google Friend Connect is in terms of how it moves on the data portability debate, it is not worth much without MySpace and Facebook on board. As a site owner and someone who would love to integrate with an initiative like this to get more eyeballs on my site, Facebook Connect is currently the most interesting programme just for the sheer number of active networkers.

Finally, best of all would be profile and friend data living somewhere outside of the social networks themselves, which we ourselves choose and then connect up to the networks we use, granting permission for them to use our social graph information to enjoy the site benefits. I’ll be watching developments here very closely.

Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira - May 21, 2008 at 04:27 am PDT

Ian, sorry, but let’s be realistic. Facebook’s ridiculous valuation is based on the premise that they own the social graph for their users. They have no problem sending my personal information out to any third-party app developer, as they tell me every time I install something on the site, but now they claim that Google is a privacy concern?

Well, actually, it is a privacy concern, but at least I know what I think of Google.I’m not sure about the zombie folk…

The reality is that if they let Google in there to get all that precious data, they are left with nothing of value. They haven’t figured out how to effectively monetize the service, and their burn rate has to be astronomical if they needed another $100 million in venture lending for more servers. The social graph is the only thing of value they really have, and can’t afford to let anyone else get their hands on it for free.
Ian Hendry - May 21, 2008 at 06:29 am PDT

Cyndy, is the social graph where the value is? I haven’t heard anyone say with any authority that they know what the relastionhip data means yet, let alone how to monetize it. I was under the impression the excitement was really around the details users are willing to share on their interests and activities and what can be done with that.

I have always thought handing their most prized asset to other developers to do something with is a bit odd, but the third party apps on Facebook have done a lot to keep people coming back and growing their social graph. I do think that Facebook Connect can probably only exacerbate the movement of the social graph away to newer, more focused niche networks though.

Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http;//www.wecando.biz
Leslie Poston - May 21, 2008 at 06:52 am PDT

I agree with Cyndy on this one, Ian. And in this case, because FaceBook brings little else to the table, their social graph is their greatest asset. To lose control of it would skew their company’s valuation to a point that would make it hard to remain funded, and as she so astutely points out, they have yet to successfully monetize it to stand alone without investors.
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira - May 21, 2008 at 07:42 am PDT

@Ian If it was only site actions they were tracking, they’d have no trouble letting you port out all your contacts. They don’t just want to know what you’re buying and what you are viewing, but also who you are talking to and who you count as a friend and what exchanges take place that’s where investors think they have value. Otherwise, they’d be no more useful really than getting at your Amazon purchase history.

Leave a comment (We support avatars from Gravatar, MyBlogLog, and FriendFeed)