3 ms·

I think what you're neglecting is the fact that most of these tools actually further silo your information to Facebook. Consider Facebook's comments widget for

I think what you're neglecting is the fact that most of these tools actually further silo your information to Facebook. Consider Facebook's comments widget for example. Yes there is clear value for the publisher, but your theory starts to fall apart on the other end of the spectrum: Facebook gets to silo all these comments and call them their own. The same principal extends to likes and worse yet, user accounts. Facebook encouraging publishers to user their profiles, comments, likes, friends, etc. takes all of this data out of the publishers hands. Imho, this is not embracing the open web by any standards.

nano81 16y ago
In regards to your example, yes the data is warehoused in Facebook servers, but the publisher still has access to the raw data: "Access to raw data: Query all comments via the comments.get API method or the comment FQL table." http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/198 http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/198
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Access, however, is granted at her majesty's pleasure.
- catshirt 16y ago
  I didn't intend to suggest the publisher couldn't access the data. Regardless, I don't think it discredits my point.
dasil003 16y ago
Obviously I made a poor choice of words in my original post, but I decided to leave it since it would be unfair to reframe the conversation after the fact. However by responding to my post you force me to further reiterate the exact same thing once again in no uncertain terms. At no point did I mean to imply that Facebook is in any way open. If "embrace and extend" does not make that clear then how about The Godfather Part 2 embrace [kiss] of death. > ... but your theory starts to fall apart ... Again, my theory is that Facebook is aware of what is going on around it, open or closed, public or private, and uses it to its advantage. And so far, nothing that is "open" or "distributed" is competing in any meaningful way with Facebook. This is very very different from what AOL did.

nano81 16y ago

In regards to your example, yes the data is warehoused in Facebook servers, but the publisher still has access to the raw data: "Access to raw data: Query all comments via the comments.get API method or the comment FQL table." http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/198 http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/198

michaelchisari 16y ago
Access, however, is granted at her majesty's pleasure.
catshirt 16y ago
I didn't intend to suggest the publisher couldn't access the data. Regardless, I don't think it discredits my point.

dasil003 16y ago

Obviously I made a poor choice of words in my original post, but I decided to leave it since it would be unfair to reframe the conversation after the fact. However by responding to my post you force me to further reiterate the exact same thing once again in no uncertain terms. At no point did I mean to imply that Facebook is in any way open. If "embrace and extend" does not make that clear then how about The Godfather Part 2 embrace [kiss] of death. > ... but your theory starts to fall apart ... Again, my theory is that Facebook is aware of what is going on around it, open or closed, public or private, and uses it to its advantage. And so far, nothing that is "open" or "distributed" is competing in any meaningful way with Facebook. This is very very different from what AOL did.