4 ms·

Facebook Gets it. Google Doesn’t.

43 points by McKittrick 12y ago

gkoberger 12y ago
Doesn't matter which large company "gets" it -- what we really need is a good, decentralized, easy to use, open, optionally-anonymous identity system on the web. Easy-to-use being the key feature. Until that happens, whether it's FB or Google or whomever else, we're stuck as the "product, not the consumer" (as Arrington correctly puts it).
- dublinben 12y ago
  How does Mozilla Persona satisfy your requirements?
  - gkoberger 12y ago
    It doesn't, however I think Mozilla is the one organization that could pull it off. 1) They've basically killed it 2) It's just a Facebook Connect clone, without your social graph (no incentive for the implementor) 3) Normal people had no clue what "Persona" was; it was confusing (no incentive for the user) 4) Not decentralized enough (they wanted it to be; just never got there.) 5) Not enough integration with the browser (also wanted it; never got there) I realize the final two are contradictions to a certain extent. There were a lot more issues with it; this is just the ones that came to mind.
rch 12y ago
I'd enjoy being able to give my users a line-item veto on permissions. It isn't really difficult to code around missing data, so I'd just assume treat it as a request up front.
brymaster 12y ago
> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe this[1]. Facebook's entire history is anti-privacy from the very beginning (here's a nice list: http://pleasedeletefacebook.com http://pleasedeletefacebook.com) and they do their business a disservice by not collecting as much as possible. Facebook users don't care about privacy; it's the reason they still use the service even after every privacy violation. Trying to spin this into a Facebook vs Google match is absurd. Facebook wants all of your data just as much as Google. They're called Big Data for a reason and information is their currency. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962
- yuhong 12y ago
  I asked this for a reason: http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-opinion-on-privacy-since-the-early-days-of-Facebook?share=1 http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-o... I wonder if I should ask this on Secret.
- javajosh 12y ago
  >information is their currency Correction: our information is their (wholly owned) asset. Between the two companies they've managed to honeypot the entire human race - and managed to get us all to do the data-entry for them. It's an incredible story, one that will have repercussions for a very long time.
  - brymaster 12y ago
    Perfect observation and you're right - the outcome of this social media explosion will be terrifying. Couldn't help but think of: "People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are." ― Max Barry, Lexicon
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  For anyone who is too lazy to read, something like 80% of these links are opinion and conjecture, 10% are things that people did reacting to information that Facebook users made public, 5% are unsubstantiated, and 5% are genuine privacy issues.
  - yuhong 12y ago
    There is still enough that are genuine issues that I thought there was a question that was worth asking.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      ? I don't know anything about you or your question.
Navarr 12y ago
Arrrrrington is off his rocker again. Harkening the death of Google and Google+ as if he'd spent enough time around there to know what he's talking about. He doesn't even bother researching the technology he's writing about > "I don’t know the details" Yet he tries to pass it off as some miraculous milestone. It's an interesting feature set that I've never thought about before, and I've never seen envisioned before. An identity platform that doesn't reveal your identity. Bringing all the joys of single sign-on without any of the permissions. But he then uses it as an excuse to complain and whine about Google+, which while some of us have reasons against it concerning anonymity and privacy, remains a brilliant identity platform that's done wonders for any service it's been integrated in - at least for me personally. There's a reason I don't have Uncrunched in my RSS reader anymore, and it has a LOT to do with how he's completely let his emotions overrule any journalistic integrity he might have once had.
- ulfw 12y ago
  Research isn't exactly his forte. I've had to experience that myself.
imsofuture 12y ago
Sorry, if you think Facebook "gets it", you are deluded.
- ulfw 12y ago
  It's Michael Arrington. Deluded is an understatement.
  - imsofuture 12y ago
    It's funny because I didn't notice that at first. Followed up with "ohhhhhh, right". :-P
donniezazen 12y ago
No one uses Google+, but the whole Internet has an account there. Author can't be so ignorant and supremely egotistical. A friend of mine uses Google+ to post pictures. He has over a million views and an audience that he wouldn't have otherwise.
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
Is this guy paid to write bullshit? WTF is he talking about? Facebook got its ass reamed by the FTC because it was retroactively changing its privacy terms, and making previously private user data, public. They are not "motivated by the privacy demands of their users." OP is a moron.
mrtron 12y ago
Perfect linkbait title. The details matter tremendously, both companies get a lot of things.
WWLink 12y ago
I hate this "gets it" mentality that gets brought into the picture anytime any product can be described with the word "social" in the description. It's a product, and taking the Hank Hill approach, the quality of the product should be the priority.
Skywing 12y ago
Arrington is still around? When will he go away? Thankfully techcrunch is mostly irrelevant lately, but ugh seeing Arrington posts is enough to last awhile.
KaoruAoiShiho 12y ago
Google is a dinosaur, it's sad but at this point it's pretty clear that's how it is. The top executives are detached from the way that the internet is used / moving towards. They grew up before an era where internet communication is the dominant form of communication. I hope they do great things with AI and wearables but in internet communications they are done.
free2rhyme214 12y ago
Why does anyone care about this? Both of these companies have access to your data if you use their service. Let me repeat that. If you use Facebook, Facebook can use and do whatever with your data. If you use Google's services, Google can use and do whatever with your data. If you don't want them to use your data don't use their service. This is getting redundant people.
andreis1 12y ago
A Google employee has recently posted this: https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk
- imsofuture 12y ago
  That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their product is selling my information to advertisers.
Exenith 12y ago
Am I the only one who feels a real mental disconnect with the people complaining about Facebook? I read interviews by developers there, where it's pretty evident that they have reasonable perspectives (i.e. they aren't evil), then I see a barrage of ridiculous vitriol. I then go to all the sites where people list "why Facebook is evil", and all I can find is misinformation, opinion, and minor understandable things blown out of proportion.
- imsofuture 12y ago
  Facebook is 'evil' because their actual, factual business plan is collecting and selling your personal information. You just can't really argue your way out of that one. No, of course I don't think the people that work there are off their rocker, or actually evil -- I just don't intend to participate in their monetization plan is all.
  - Exenith 12y ago
    So this free website that serves billions of people makes money off the data you knowingly give it to target advertisements. That's what is considered evil nowadays? Does it escape people that this is the only way we're going to get free social media or search engines? Here are the options the currently existing websites have: 1. Free and sells data to advertisers 2. Not free 3. Nonexistent If none of those options please you, then it's not some concern about malpractice, it's just being unrealistic.

43 points by McKittrick 12y ago

Doesn't matter which large company "gets" it -- what we really need is a good, decentralized, easy to use, open, optionally-anonymous identity system on the web. Easy-to-use being the key feature. Until that happens, whether it's FB or Google or whomever else, we're stuck as the "product, not the consumer" (as Arrington correctly puts it).

dublinben 12y ago
How does Mozilla Persona satisfy your requirements?
- gkoberger 12y ago
  It doesn't, however I think Mozilla is the one organization that could pull it off. 1) They've basically killed it 2) It's just a Facebook Connect clone, without your social graph (no incentive for the implementor) 3) Normal people had no clue what "Persona" was; it was confusing (no incentive for the user) 4) Not decentralized enough (they wanted it to be; just never got there.) 5) Not enough integration with the browser (also wanted it; never got there) I realize the final two are contradictions to a certain extent. There were a lot more issues with it; this is just the ones that came to mind.

rch 12y ago

I'd enjoy being able to give my users a line-item veto on permissions. It isn't really difficult to code around missing data, so I'd just assume treat it as a request up front.

brymaster 12y ago

> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe this[1]. Facebook's entire history is anti-privacy from the very beginning (here's a nice list: http://pleasedeletefacebook.com http://pleasedeletefacebook.com) and they do their business a disservice by not collecting as much as possible. Facebook users don't care about privacy; it's the reason they still use the service even after every privacy violation. Trying to spin this into a Facebook vs Google match is absurd. Facebook wants all of your data just as much as Google. They're called Big Data for a reason and information is their currency. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962

yuhong 12y ago
I asked this for a reason: http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-opinion-on-privacy-since-the-early-days-of-Facebook?share=1 http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-o... I wonder if I should ask this on Secret.
javajosh 12y ago
>information is their currency Correction: our information is their (wholly owned) asset. Between the two companies they've managed to honeypot the entire human race - and managed to get us all to do the data-entry for them. It's an incredible story, one that will have repercussions for a very long time.
- brymaster 12y ago
  Perfect observation and you're right - the outcome of this social media explosion will be terrifying. Couldn't help but think of: "People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are." ― Max Barry, Lexicon
jamesaguilar 12y ago
For anyone who is too lazy to read, something like 80% of these links are opinion and conjecture, 10% are things that people did reacting to information that Facebook users made public, 5% are unsubstantiated, and 5% are genuine privacy issues.
- yuhong 12y ago
  There is still enough that are genuine issues that I thought there was a question that was worth asking.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    ? I don't know anything about you or your question.

Navarr 12y ago

Arrrrrington is off his rocker again. Harkening the death of Google and Google+ as if he'd spent enough time around there to know what he's talking about. He doesn't even bother researching the technology he's writing about > "I don’t know the details" Yet he tries to pass it off as some miraculous milestone. It's an interesting feature set that I've never thought about before, and I've never seen envisioned before. An identity platform that doesn't reveal your identity. Bringing all the joys of single sign-on without any of the permissions. But he then uses it as an excuse to complain and whine about Google+, which while some of us have reasons against it concerning anonymity and privacy, remains a brilliant identity platform that's done wonders for any service it's been integrated in - at least for me personally. There's a reason I don't have Uncrunched in my RSS reader anymore, and it has a LOT to do with how he's completely let his emotions overrule any journalistic integrity he might have once had.

ulfw 12y ago
Research isn't exactly his forte. I've had to experience that myself.

imsofuture 12y ago

Sorry, if you think Facebook "gets it", you are deluded.

ulfw 12y ago
It's Michael Arrington. Deluded is an understatement.
- imsofuture 12y ago
  It's funny because I didn't notice that at first. Followed up with "ohhhhhh, right". :-P

donniezazen 12y ago

No one uses Google+, but the whole Internet has an account there. Author can't be so ignorant and supremely egotistical. A friend of mine uses Google+ to post pictures. He has over a million views and an audience that he wouldn't have otherwise.

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago

Is this guy paid to write bullshit? WTF is he talking about? Facebook got its ass reamed by the FTC because it was retroactively changing its privacy terms, and making previously private user data, public. They are not "motivated by the privacy demands of their users." OP is a moron.

mrtron 12y ago

Perfect linkbait title. The details matter tremendously, both companies get a lot of things.

WWLink 12y ago

I hate this "gets it" mentality that gets brought into the picture anytime any product can be described with the word "social" in the description. It's a product, and taking the Hank Hill approach, the quality of the product should be the priority.

Skywing 12y ago

Arrington is still around? When will he go away? Thankfully techcrunch is mostly irrelevant lately, but ugh seeing Arrington posts is enough to last awhile.

KaoruAoiShiho 12y ago

Google is a dinosaur, it's sad but at this point it's pretty clear that's how it is. The top executives are detached from the way that the internet is used / moving towards. They grew up before an era where internet communication is the dominant form of communication. I hope they do great things with AI and wearables but in internet communications they are done.

free2rhyme214 12y ago

Why does anyone care about this? Both of these companies have access to your data if you use their service. Let me repeat that. If you use Facebook, Facebook can use and do whatever with your data. If you use Google's services, Google can use and do whatever with your data. If you don't want them to use your data don't use their service. This is getting redundant people.

andreis1 12y ago

A Google employee has recently posted this: https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk

imsofuture 12y ago
That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their product is selling my information to advertisers.

Exenith 12y ago

Am I the only one who feels a real mental disconnect with the people complaining about Facebook? I read interviews by developers there, where it's pretty evident that they have reasonable perspectives (i.e. they aren't evil), then I see a barrage of ridiculous vitriol. I then go to all the sites where people list "why Facebook is evil", and all I can find is misinformation, opinion, and minor understandable things blown out of proportion.

imsofuture 12y ago
Facebook is 'evil' because their actual, factual business plan is collecting and selling your personal information. You just can't really argue your way out of that one. No, of course I don't think the people that work there are off their rocker, or actually evil -- I just don't intend to participate in their monetization plan is all.
- Exenith 12y ago
  So this free website that serves billions of people makes money off the data you knowingly give it to target advertisements. That's what is considered evil nowadays? Does it escape people that this is the only way we're going to get free social media or search engines? Here are the options the currently existing websites have: 1. Free and sells data to advertisers 2. Not free 3. Nonexistent If none of those options please you, then it's not some concern about malpractice, it's just being unrealistic.