[kmavm]

'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.

[mcmc]

Absolutely apples to oranges.

Google crawls Facebook's data, by request (robots.txt.) You, me, Facebook, and the world do have access to Google's complete data set... its called the world wide web.

Facebook, on the other hand, does anything it can to get a hold of private data owned by individuals, and then hoard and monetize it.

Gmail Contacts is an example of private data, as is the Facebook social graph. These are directly comparable, unlike Facebook's social graph and the greater WWW that google uses for building search indexes.

[kmavm]

In the parlance of Facebook critics, robots.txt is "opt out." But, if you don't like my web data example, consider streetview data. I don't recall asking Google to build a fleet of androids to drive around my neighborhood taking pictures of me and my neighbors' houses, but they did so anyway. They control access to this data just as closely as they do their web index. And let me re-emphasize, I am perfectly ok with that, at least until Google starts beating its chest about "reciprocity."

"Facebook ... does anything it can to get a hold of private data owned by individuals ..."

Actually, Spock, Plaxo (RIP), Rapleaf, Whitepages.com, MyLife.com, the credit agencies, governments doing background checks, etc., do anything they can to get hold of private data. They scrape online directories and listings of students at schools, digitize yearbooks and phonebooks, buy subscriber information from magazines and ISPs, buy search log data from ISPs, go to brokers who do this shady stuff and then resell the resulting information, etc. Google itself slaps a pixel on AdSense clients, and a cookie on your disk, and builds machine models that watch your web browsing history to infer your likely age, gender, education levels, interests, etc.

Facebook asks users for their personal information, and they give it to Facebook, because doing so makes Facebook's service directly, immediately better. There is a world of difference; it is the difference between surveillance and voluntary communication.

"... and then hoard and monetize it."

"Hoard"? Would you rather Facebook gave the information away to anybody who asked? Somehow that seems worse to me. Providing programmatic, API access to all of a given users' friends' personal information which is what Google is insisting on here, would be hugely irresponsible. Users have weak passwords, phishing sites exist, etc.

"Monetize": Ah, you're edging perilously close to the "Facebook sells your data!" canard. Thank you for not stating that falsehood outright. As you probably know, Facebook pairs advertisements with users that match the advertisers' criteria; the user's data is not part of the bargain. What, specifically, do you object to about this practice? Do you feel the same way about Google "monetizing" the picture it took of your home?

[gsk]

Yes. Consider streetview.

" I don't recall asking Google to build a fleet of androids to drive around my neighborhood taking pictures of me and my neighbors' houses, but they did so anyway."

You have misread what google does. Legally, Google does not need your permission. Your implication that google collects personal data with streetview pictures would make sense if they take pictures of the _inside_ of your house.

Google and Facebook run businesses. They need to make money. The question is how they do it. And, on that question, I am on google's side because it is a better place for me and my data.

You set up strawmen ("Would you rather Facebook gave the information away to anybody who asked?") and it does not do much good to your argument.

[tobtoh]

I don't think your Google analogy is quite the right example.

* Google indexes information that is public, that I (or others) have chosen to publish. The data on Facebook is personal data.

* Other search engines, or even yourself if you wanted to code a crawler can index that same info because there is no 'lock'. No-one besides Facebook can access my personal info (because they have put a lock on).

* This is about (one caveat - see below) being able to access my personal data and being able to port it elsewhere. It's not about ad targetting or other business aspects - ie I don't expect FB to make their ad data exportable, just my personal details.

The Caveat (which is related to your thought experiment): With regard to your thought experiment - I think the answer is both - Google's action is both a 'striking a blow for openness' and' a self-interest action to 'negotiate a favorable market position'.