8 ms·

Google points finger at Facebook hypocrisy, blocks Gmail import

68 points by yanw 16y ago

nspiegelberg 16y 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".
- tobtoh 16y 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.
  - rbarooah 16y 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?
    - tobtoh 16y ago
      I think it's exactly clear cut - if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google. 'Open' doesn't win if others don't come to the party - Google is playing hardball to force Facebook to gives users control of their data. Yes they have ulterior motives but in this situation I believe the end does justify the means. If Facebook wants to open their data at their own pace, then don't reap the benefits of 'openness', if you aren't prepared to contribute. Facebook is effectively the big selfish kid at school who only takes, but doesn't give anything back (in terms of openness).
      - kmavm 16y ago
        'if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google.' This is exactly what Google does: read the open data that all other sites provide, over http, add a lot of value by processing that data, and carefully control any 'reciprocal' access to the results of this process: namely, their search index and ad targeting systems. To be clear, I am fine with that, and you should be too. Google has added a ton of value to a lot of lives, and I am perfectly happy with them making a buck or two in exchange. That would simply not be possible if they were perfectly "open" in the way they're insisting Facebook should be. Lots of R&D effort, some of it mine, has gone into constructing a machine-readable version of the real-world social graph. Google insisting it should have full, unencumbered, automated access to this data, because users of its GMail service have provided some inputs into it, is every bit as insane as Facebook insisting it should have full access to Google's web index, because Googlebot crawls Facebook. Perhaps Facebook should start serving empty pages to GoogleBot until Google "opens up." Let's perform a thought experiment, stripping out the branding and associated emotional baggage. Company A and Company B both provide large scale consumer-facing services over the web, and both have large, valuable datasets that they mutually covet. There is a lot of overlap in the userbase between the two groups; users sometimes take data from Company A's service to improve their experience of Company B, and vice versa. Company A decides to shut down this access, though no users have asked them to, and though they've voted with their feet by the millions to be able to move their data from Company A's service to Company B. Is Company A striking a blow for openness against the evil, proprietary Company B? Or, is Company A just trying to negotiate a favorable market position, while manipulating your emotions the best they can? Disclaimer: Facebook pays me to write code, not HN posts.
- modeless 16y 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 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 16y 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.
  - kmavm 16y 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.
    - axod 16y ago
      The original article isn't about open source. It's about data portability and openness vs walled gardens. Producing open source stuff is cool 'n all, but it doesn't really matter as much as being open vs closed in terms of what you can do with your own data. Personally, I don't particularly care if a company decides to be totally closed source and not participate in open source contributions, as long as they don't start putting up walled gardens and trying to lock in user data.
    - moultano 16y ago
      Android is the largest open source release by any company ever.
  - mfukar 16y 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.
jeffreymcmanus 16y 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 16y ago
  Me. :(
- tiagok 16y ago
  I agree. But I also think this action has to do with the launching of the Google Me (Google's competitor to Facebook).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yanw 16y ago
  I think it's more about sending a message here.
- Seth_Kriticos 16y 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 16y ago
    I don't think you can actually delete a Facebook account. It still exists somewhere...
    - baq 16y ago
      you can post nsfw images and get reported, i heard it works better.
    - kang 16y ago
      Well u can, you have to contact them! See settings.
gord 16y 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 16y ago
  http://portablecontacts.net/draft-spec.html http://portablecontacts.net/draft-spec.html
  - gord 16y ago
    reference implementation ?
chunkbot 16y 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 16y ago
  AFAIK - This is not about the user. It's about other web services interfacing with those APIs.
- richardw 16y 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
dman 16y 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.
- yanw 16y 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 16y 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).
  - dman 16y 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 16y ago
I deleted my facebook account a long time ago.
robryan 16y 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 16y 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.
- rbarooah 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago
Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking
DjDarkman 16y 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.

68 points by yanw 16y 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".

tobtoh 16y 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.
- rbarooah 16y 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?
  - tobtoh 16y ago
    I think it's exactly clear cut - if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google. 'Open' doesn't win if others don't come to the party - Google is playing hardball to force Facebook to gives users control of their data. Yes they have ulterior motives but in this situation I believe the end does justify the means. If Facebook wants to open their data at their own pace, then don't reap the benefits of 'openness', if you aren't prepared to contribute. Facebook is effectively the big selfish kid at school who only takes, but doesn't give anything back (in terms of openness).
    - kmavm 16y ago
      'if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google.' This is exactly what Google does: read the open data that all other sites provide, over http, add a lot of value by processing that data, and carefully control any 'reciprocal' access to the results of this process: namely, their search index and ad targeting systems. To be clear, I am fine with that, and you should be too. Google has added a ton of value to a lot of lives, and I am perfectly happy with them making a buck or two in exchange. That would simply not be possible if they were perfectly "open" in the way they're insisting Facebook should be. Lots of R&D effort, some of it mine, has gone into constructing a machine-readable version of the real-world social graph. Google insisting it should have full, unencumbered, automated access to this data, because users of its GMail service have provided some inputs into it, is every bit as insane as Facebook insisting it should have full access to Google's web index, because Googlebot crawls Facebook. Perhaps Facebook should start serving empty pages to GoogleBot until Google "opens up." Let's perform a thought experiment, stripping out the branding and associated emotional baggage. Company A and Company B both provide large scale consumer-facing services over the web, and both have large, valuable datasets that they mutually covet. There is a lot of overlap in the userbase between the two groups; users sometimes take data from Company A's service to improve their experience of Company B, and vice versa. Company A decides to shut down this access, though no users have asked them to, and though they've voted with their feet by the millions to be able to move their data from Company A's service to Company B. Is Company A striking a blow for openness against the evil, proprietary Company B? Or, is Company A just trying to negotiate a favorable market position, while manipulating your emotions the best they can? Disclaimer: Facebook pays me to write code, not HN posts.
modeless 16y 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 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 16y 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.
- kmavm 16y 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.
  - axod 16y ago
    The original article isn't about open source. It's about data portability and openness vs walled gardens. Producing open source stuff is cool 'n all, but it doesn't really matter as much as being open vs closed in terms of what you can do with your own data. Personally, I don't particularly care if a company decides to be totally closed source and not participate in open source contributions, as long as they don't start putting up walled gardens and trying to lock in user data.
  - moultano 16y ago
    Android is the largest open source release by any company ever.
- mfukar 16y 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.

jeffreymcmanus 16y 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 16y ago
Me. :(
tiagok 16y ago
I agree. But I also think this action has to do with the launching of the Google Me (Google's competitor to Facebook).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yanw 16y ago
I think it's more about sending a message here.
Seth_Kriticos 16y 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 16y ago
  I don't think you can actually delete a Facebook account. It still exists somewhere...
  - baq 16y ago
    you can post nsfw images and get reported, i heard it works better.
  - kang 16y ago
    Well u can, you have to contact them! See settings.

gord 16y 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 16y ago
http://portablecontacts.net/draft-spec.html http://portablecontacts.net/draft-spec.html
- gord 16y ago
  reference implementation ?

chunkbot 16y 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 16y ago
AFAIK - This is not about the user. It's about other web services interfacing with those APIs.
richardw 16y 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

dman 16y 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.

yanw 16y 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 16y 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).
- dman 16y 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 16y ago

I deleted my facebook account a long time ago.

robryan 16y 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 16y 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.
rbarooah 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago

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

DjDarkman 16y 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.