Google Asks Users To Complain Against Facebook

dkd903 writes "A kind of war has been going on recently between Facebook and Google over a contact export issue. First, Google blocked Facebook access to the Gmail contacts API. To this, Facebook responded back with a new method to get Gmail contacts of a user (the download contacts option). And now Google has slapped back again at Facebook and asks users indirectly to file a data protectionism complaint against Facebook. When a Facebook user clicks on the Download Your Contacts button on the 'Facebook import contact via Gmail' page, the user is then redirected to a new page on Google's server, which looks something like this..." Can I just say that watching this is absolutely hysterical?

Comments

Suck it up Zuck.

[unity100]

yeah zuckerberg. suck it up. you rode on the web culture getting to where you are. you cannot just go protectionist on us and become a control freak. share data, as others share data with you.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Pojut]

This whole Google/Facebook thing is just yet another example of how greed directly impacts user experiences.

I just wish they would get their pissing match done with and play nice. Seriously. This isn't doing ANYONE any good.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Actually, he/they are successfully doing just that because most users don't know or care . This is an interesting move on Google's part, in that it actually increases awareness. Still, that being said, I suspect the average response would be [for those who bother to read it and don't just find the easiest way to click through - the typical response to *any* 'helpful interferences'] "Um, ok. Why would I want to to take my facebook info somewhere else? It's facebook."

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

No worse than trying to watch TV with huge scrolling banners over it whining about how this station won't renew their contract, superimposed by the cable company over the station's huge scrolling banner whining about how the cable company is screwing them.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[bhagwad]

If you want to register a complaint, here is the page where Google allows you to do so: http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[guybrush3pwood]

It's not doing any harm, either, since facebook is useless. So don't be mean and let the children play...

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

First, that's in TFA (if that qualifies as an "article") itself. Second, see my other comment on this article -- what good does this do? Submits an anonymous complaint to Facebook - I'm sure that'll fix them right up!

If you want them to change, get a few million people to stop using Facebook until they do. Unless that happens, it's entirely up to what FB is willing to do in the name of good PR.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[KiloByte]

Yeah. By the way, it's incredible how much you can speed the average page by adblocking facebook.com and fbcdn.net -- at least on a decent browser (Firefox, sadly not Chrome (yet?)). It's scary how big a percentage of pages bear Facebook and Twatter widgets. Heck, even Slashdot has several icons next to every single damn comment -- everyone I know, even including people who use Facebook, adblock these too which shows how annoying they are.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[qubezz]

In fact, Google is doing a very good thing by aggravating Facebook.

Consider the stupidity of giving Facebook your email username and password, so that Facebook can log in to your email account as you, and scrape all your contact info. (While they are at it, why don't they get your emails too...) They've conned people into doing just that.

If you have any contact with a Gmail account user, Facebook gets your email address when the user sheepishly turn over their contact list to Facebook to automatically 'find friends'. If Facebook didn't already amass data on unwilling non-users (thanks to picture tags and such), they now have a wealth of email information about who knows who. And don't forget, their profit model is selling your privacy.

Google should make it possible to permanently blacklist your email address from its 'export' feature through a web form, even if you have a non-gmail address, so that your gmail 'friends' can't offer up your email address out of their contact lists to third parties.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[pspahn]

Heck, even Slashdot has several icons next to every single damn comment

News to me. I don't see any icons.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[ganjadude]

had no idea, been using adblock for ages now

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the part where fb balances on the edge of privacy laws. If some company shares private information with. Other company, they must do lots of paper work or they break the law. Why this can't be applied to people. If somebody knows my email address, they must get my permission before submiting it to third party. Third party can't spam me with invites to use their services.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he/they are successfully doing just that because most users don't know or care . This is an interesting move on Google's part, in that it actually increases awareness. Still, that being said, I suspect the average response would be [for those who bother to read it and don't just find the easiest way to click through - the typical response to *any* 'helpful interferences'] "Um, ok. Why would I want to to take my facebook info somewhere else? It's facebook."

Yes, the noobs moved on the Internet.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Stregano]

Actually this is doing me a great deal of good since I know my contact information will not be floating on facebook from g-mail users

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[fiannaFailMan]

Heck, even Slashdot has several icons next to every single damn comment -

Wat

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[MoonBuggy]

I just wish they would get their pissing match done with and play nice. Seriously. This isn't doing ANYONE any good.

They may be doing it for entirely selfish reasons, but the fact of the matter is that Google are bringing forward the argument about open access to one's data.

Many thousands of people who's eyes would glaze over at the mere mention of open document formats or API interoperability are being told in no uncertain terms that their data will be trapped by a non-open service, and that this can lead to bad things further down the line.

Now if only Google considered it profitable to make a similar stand against those manufacturers who decide to treat the end user as an adversary in terms of access to their own device, we might really get somewhere.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[FredFredrickson]

I just can't stand it when people make these "everybody get along" type statements..

You know, without measuring the merit of either side of the argument, and just taking the hippie approach doesn't do any good. The fact is, Google is defending the users by placing a small optional embargo against facebook in hopes that facebook will do something nice for users- and yes, for google as well.

In other words, it can do good for somebody.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[icebike]

Really? It does me good.

I'm sick of getting facebook invites because some fool with my address in his address book decided to upload the entire list to facebook, without so much as a "by your leave".

My address(s) live quietly in lots of people's google contacts and I get no spam at all from that. Yet ONE person uploads that to facebook and facebook themselves start spamming me, followed in rapid succession by pill pushers and foreign diplomats, dethroned princes, and ousted former heads of state, all with lots of money they want to share with me.

I fail to see the greed tie in here.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[hesaigo999ca]

I agree with you, funny how when asked to share HIS info to help gmail get cross platform visibility like his facebook is doing importing gmail info, were turned down....but then again, after seeing the movie, this guy likes to steal alot!

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear god thank you. mod parent up infinity.
"consider the stupidity of giving facebook your email username and password."
I repeat it. please everyone stop, and read it again.
"consider the stupidity of giving facebook your email username and password."

i am bothered by two distinct concepts.
1) it is so, so, so stupid. i live in a world of stupid. yet i must sometimes sit down, put my feet up, and wipe my furrowed brow just to conceive how completely ignorant an organism would have to be to do this. nothing in the animal kingdom could be this dumb and survive more than a few generations.
2) it is so, so, so common. yes, i know, most people are stupid. it's just that this is more than most. it's so many people.

this is one of the very few datapoints that makes me wish it were legal to forcibly sterilize people.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[ByOhTek]

While interesting - in the end, it won't prevent me from getting my data off GMail, and facebook cannot/will not supplant GMail, so it can't actually make me lose access to my data.

If it were another email provider, I would be a bit worried, but as of yet, not so much.

What worries me, is that FB asks for my email address and password with stuff like that. Seriously, it's sad that people are dumb enough to give 3rd parties their site login/pass.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[BlackPignouf]

I totally agree with what you say.

Facebook does know a lot of stuff about a lot of people, and I totally understand that it can piss the Slashdot crowd off.

BUT, Google knows a lot more stuff about a lot more people.

For example, Facebook knows which kind of Pizzas I prefer and which skateboard videos I like to share, but that's about it.

On the other hand, Google :
- can read my e-mails
- can look at my calendar
- knows my bank account number
- knows my address and my telephone number. Ditto my girlfriend's, my parents', my friends'.
- knows what I buy on Ebay/Amazon (thanks to confirmation e-mails)
- knows what I look for on the Internet
- knows which RSS feeds I'd like to read, and which I actually read.

I'd like to see them display a big "WARNING" page next time I log in to one of their services, just so that they can explain me what exactly they're doing with my data, why I should care and why I could think I don't like it.

Until then, they're just being a bunch of hypocrites, and use this "Don't be evil" & "Oh noes! Facebook doesn't let you export your data" to maintain their monopoly on screwing with the world data.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[jojoba_oil]

I just wish they would get their pissing match done with and play nice. Seriously. This isn't doing ANYONE any good.

That is exactly the same sentiment of users over a similar dispute going on in China.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[nschubach]

I think he's referring to the different category icons (the Gates Borg, etc.) which (maybe he doesn't know) you can turn off in your profile.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[D'Sphitz]

It's not doing any harm, either, since facebook is useless. So don't be mean and let the children play...

Thanks for taking care of the obligatory "popular things suck" stance, very insightful as usual. /golfclap

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Ken D]

Wouldn't giving Facebook your username and password be a violation of the following clause from Gmail's TOS?

# Sell, trade, resell or otherwise exploit for any unauthorized commercial purpose or transfer any Gmail account

or perhaps (since contacts include email addresses)

Generate or facilitate unsolicited commercial email ("spam"). Such activity includes, but is not limited to

...
# data mining any web property (including Google) to find email addresses

...
# selling, exchanging or distributing to a third party the email addresses of any person without such person's knowing and continued consent to such disclosure

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Nadaka]

Last I checked, you don't actually have to give facebook your login credentials for gmail or yahoo, both gmail and yahoo have an api for exporting contacts. You won't be prompted for your username/password if you are already logged into your email.

Linkedin however does ask for your username and password.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[poetmatt]

do you even know what you're talking about?

google wants data to be bidirectional - you can take your information out of facebook, you can take your information into facebook.

It's google trying to get facebook to acknowledge better privacy standards.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Garabito]

(While they are at it, why don't they get your emails too...)

Sadly, Facebook could do it and most people wouldn't care. They'd be excited they can see their e-mails in their inbox, without having to go to the GMail website, and be able to post their e-mails on their walls so their friends can 'Like' 'em and post comments about them... Maybe I just shut up and stop giving them ideas.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[geekoid]

We aren't talking about your data, we are talking about the data of all your contacts. Do they want their info on facebook? do they want it put there by you?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[AusIV]

You won't be prompted for your username/password if you are already logged into your email.

And I believe if you are prompted for your username/password it will be by your e-mail provider, not by Facebook.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[guyminuslife]

It's a popular position to take. I was part of the "Popular Things Suck" Facebook group until too many people joined it; now it sucks.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah zuckerberg. suck it up. you rode on the web culture getting to where you are. you cannot just go protectionist on us and become a control freak. share data, as others share data with you.

"Go" protectionist? Since when was he not protectionist?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Late Adopter]

You don't need to provide your password for Facebook to access your Google contacts. That's the whole point of the situation. Google provides a mechanism to export your contacts if you authorize a website to access them (in a manner similar to OAuth I suppose). Facebook doesn't, so any new contact information is trapped there unless you spend a long night with copy/paste.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

The key difference is that you gave Google all of that information. I have no idea who the hell is putting my information up on Facebook, and not only can they put it up there for Facebook to have it, they can put it up there for EVERYBODY to have it.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the stupidity of giving Facebook your email username and password, so that Facebook can log in to your email account as you, and scrape all your contact info.

You aren't giving Facebook your username/password. The whole point of the API is that Facebook never gets your credentials. Basically, Facebook sends you to a Google-owned page, where you enter your credentials and authorize Google to send your contacts to Facebook.

Having said that: If Facebook were to actually request your username/password, I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands of people would hand it over without a second though.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[sangreal66]

It doesn't "put their info on facebook," it just scans your contacts and shows you if any of them have facebook accounts that you haven't befriended.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[david_thornley]

Seriously. This isn't doing ANYONE any good.

Are you kidding? It's making it more difficult for Facebook users to mail out Facebook invites to everybody in their contacts list. That's doing a lot of people a lot of good.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is being hypocritical...they're not open because they believe you should be able to take your data with you, they're open because they expect a return on their openness investment. It's not about the user, it's all about them.

It's sour grapes. Facebook has move vaulable contact data than Google does, and they are salivating at the possibility of getting their hands on it. It's just like their source code or search data, Google is open when they think they can profit from others, and closed when they think others would profit from them.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why adblock when you can just add them to your host file.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[revlayle]

Then once they are friended to you in the system, the collection of information that builds about your contacts/friends on FB becomed "trapped" in the FB system. Of course, you can always "hand-copy" lots of it to another system, but you cannot simply get a data file or export of you contacts/friends that are on FB into an easily portable format to put in another system. Conversely, FB doesn't think it is a problem that they can import the data from many other places to easily start your collection of friend info

I *think* THAT's the point.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most popular things do, in fact, suck. Just look around you. Popular music, popular movies, popular books, popular software, popular restaurants, popular web sites. The vast majority of people are semi-intelligent sheep. Some of them might be nice, but they are still on a lower rung of intelligence and insight than the remainder. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's simply the way it is.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[ByOhTek]

Well, that's completely non sequitur to the person I was replying to and the message displayed by Google, isn't it?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[ByOhTek]

Oh, ok. With a similar "feature" on Facebook, you do. It's scary that many people I know who are supposed to be techies (one, who I know actually isn't, but seems to think he is because he own's a Mac rather than a PC...) use it.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

An equivalent to noscript for Chrome
NotScripts. It's as close as we've got for now.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Noughmad]

If Facebook were to actually request your username/password, I have no doubt that hundreds of millions of people would hand it over without a second though.

FTFY. Welcome to the 2010's.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of pages that suck in facebook is fewer than the number that suck in something from Google. For example, slashdot sucks in something from google-analytics but not facebook.

The number of widgets that are attributed to Google watching everything you do on the web is far greater than facebook or twitter.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[lilfields]

But according to the article, it was Google that was protecting its data first?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[geekoid]

It needs to be opt in, not opt out.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[mhelander]

Sure, but that's not the issue. The reason Google is making a fuss now is that Facebook in turn won't freely share your contacts with Crazebook and Acebook, exposing you to their ads and ousted head of state connections as well. As far as I understand, anyway.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[BlackSnake112]

Actually facebook keeps the data and sells it to their 'partners'. Who in turn sell that info to their partners. And so on.

I found this out when I was getting my info removed for a people info database. They got the info about me from facebook. I do not now or have ever had a facebook account. My sister does have a facebook account. All of her contacts were in that people data website. It took a few phone calls, emails, and threats to contact the state attorney general office to get it removed.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[BenoitRen]

On the other hand, Google : - can read my e-mails - can look at my calendar - knows my bank account number - knows my address and my telephone number. Ditto my girlfriend's, my parents', my friends'. - knows what I buy on Ebay/Amazon (thanks to confirmation e-mails) - knows what I look for on the Internet - knows which RSS feeds I'd like to read, and which I actually read.

If you're aware of this, why are you still using their services?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[cheekyjohnson]

"The vast majority of people are semi-intelligent sheep."

I don't know about that. I don't see how anyone with even a single shred of intelligence could be an indoctrinated drone, as the people who seem to resist being one are usually the ones who are at least a little bit intelligent. Too bad there aren't many of those people.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[reeno49]

lulwut? How is this insightful? It's funny, for sure. But insightful? Really?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[kiore]

Facebook can log in to your email account as you, [...] While they are at it, why don't they get your emails too.

Agreee totally, if facebook want to read everyone's emails they should have to finance their own Streetview cars.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[miaDWZ]

Consider the stupidity of giving Facebook your email username and password, so that Facebook can log in to your email account as you, and scrape all your contact info. (While they are at it, why don't they get your emails too...) They've conned people into doing just that.

Facebook may have done this once, but they had stopped doing it a while ago and instead started to use Google Contact's API via OAuth -- that's what started this all off, Google changed the terms/conditions of their API preventing Facebook from using the system.

Deciding to not take this lying down, Facebook then instead directly linked users to the Google Contacts Export page, then Google modified said export page to throw up that big scary warning described in the article.

That said, Facebook still happily logs into webmail for sites which don't use OAuth like user's ISP webmail, exactly how you described.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[BlackPignouf]

Fair question.

I just happen to like their services, and didn't find any better offer in terms of convenience and price.

Just like nuclear energy, I think I kinda need it now, but I'd be happy not to use it anymore.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[KiloByte]

Of course, blocking all those trackers, beacons, 1x1 gifs and all that junk goes without saying. Google-analytics or urchin are just as bad.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[guyminuslife]

Beats me. I often get mismoderated.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Ol Olsoc]

Facebook does not suck because it is popular. Facebook sucks because it sucks.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

His deviations from your ideal of received grammar do not impair the expressiveness of his post. Up yours, asshat.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[beaviz]

No worse than trying to watch TV with huge scrolling banners over it whining about how this station won't renew their contract, superimposed by the cable company over the station's huge scrolling banner whining about how the cable company is screwing them.

Is someone doing this?

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[bemymonkey]

How is the pissing match itself impacting users?

Personally, I was pretty pissed off when I couldn't find any way to sync, or much less import contacts from Facebook to my Google contacts. Now Google is fighting to make that easier for me... and that's a good thing.

Notice that Google hasn't blocked the current method, they've just added a warning... an elegant solution, IMO.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[guyminuslife]

Parent is case in point.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Tim C]

Well, he says "next to every single damn comment" - the category icons aren't against the comments, they're against the story. (Unless I already switched them off and don't remember)

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Tim C]

Yet ONE person uploads that to facebook and facebook themselves start spamming me, followed in rapid succession by pill pushers and foreign diplomats, dethroned princes, and ousted former heads of state, all with lots of money they want to share with me.

Pics or it didn't happen. A couple of my friends used Facebook's "friend finder" feature, and I got a few "don't forget $friend has invited you to join Facebook!" type mails. I have received zero spam to that address.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Spaseboy]

Adblock will then collapse the element, so it was like it was never there to begin with whereas a host file block, while just as effective in practise, leaves you with a 404 placeholder.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[guybrush3pwood]

Facebook sucks because it sucks.

Exactly. IMO, it sucks because after a few days of catching up with long-missed mates, you realize nobody does anything useful there. It's not that everything in this life must serve a high, noble purpose, but facebook serves no purpose at all except wasting time. Still, it has millions of users. I guess it's because of the pictures. Pretty much what happened other sites, such as flickr.

Re:Suck it up Zuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely disagree. this is one example where I am 100% behind Google. Facebook has for far to long now claimed they are part of the web 2.0 open and data sharing trend. This is a great PR move for Google because Facebook can say nothing which makes them look good unless they comply. In addition by not complying FB puts their entire platform at risk (which is their model of sharing, openness and communication). Google is still able to stand on its two feet here and honestly say they are still enabling users to export their data to FB it is just an extra step now.

Been There Before

[TaoPhoenix]

Three hundred people called. They want the stuff back that Microsoft swiped and then locked in proprietary formats.

Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just say that watching his is absolutely hysterical?

No.

Re:Answer

[OakDragon]

Can I just say that watching his is absolutely hysterical?

His what?

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a typo in the summary, is fixed now.

Go Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that Google is doing this. In fact, I think Google is being too kind to Facebook.

Great. I'm doing it now

[bhagwad]

Just registered a complaint. This is the right thing to do. People and corporations must be made aware that they have no right to hang on to user's personal data without giving them the choice to export it in an easy and convenient way.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Just registered a complaint. This is the right thing to do. People and corporations must be made aware that they have no right to hang on to user's personal data without giving them the choice to export it in an easy and convenient way.

The question is, what did registering a complaint do? Your name and email are not attached, so what good, exactly, is that complaint supposed to do except allow google to say "X number of users complained about your unfair practices, so there!" Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .

Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Eil]

People and corporations must be made aware that they have no right to hang on to user's personal data without giving them the choice to export it in an easy and convenient way.

People must be made aware that they have the right to not submit personal data in the first place.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[RevWaldo]

And if the users of either service were actually paying money for them, you'd might actually be right.

.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[MozeeToby]

So wait... how exactly can I view, let alone export, all the personal data that Google has collected on me over the years? What if I want to switch to a different search engine but don't want to lose all the behind the scenes tweaking that can be done with a good decades worth of search history?

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[ach1000]

https://www.google.com/dashboard

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[MozeeToby]

That's an awfully high level summary, considering that Google keeps track of every search term you've ever entered, being able to see which services you've signed up for isn't quite the level of detail that I had in mind.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how paranoid you sound?

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[AaxelB]

So wait... how exactly can I view, let alone export, all the personal data that Google has collected on me over the years? What if I want to switch to a different search engine but don't want to lose all the behind the scenes tweaking that can be done with a good decades worth of search history?

https://www.google.com/history/

I don't know if they provide an export feature, but all the searches you made while logged in are there. I found out I've done 11307 searches! That's actually fewer than I thought... It's pretty interesting to look at what I was searching for 4 years ago.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Dashiva Dan]

If google gets, say, a million complaints sent through, and facebook does nothing, then the Google can make public "We forwarded a million complaints, and facebook did nothing", which, if timed correctly, probably as facebook makes some "we listen to our users, if 100,000 people ask for something, then we do it" type publicity, google can trot this out... Not saying they would, or should need to, but it's hanging over facebook's head unless they deal with it. Google is just being the 'big backer' for our complaints, thus giving them credibility.
Sure, perhaps there are better things that could be done, but this is surely better than Google doing nothing?

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Adm.Wiggin]

Why don't you try clicking on one, then? https://www.google.com/history/lookup?st=web

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[The MAZZTer]

Your web history has been paused. This service will not collect any history until you choose to resume

:)

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It won't hurt, that's true. And FB ignoring it does cast Google in a positive light; I'm just saying that they don't have the leverage they need to force Facebook's hand. As long as FB isn't losing a significant number of users (and given their user base, that would need to be quite a lot) all Google can *actually* do is give Facebook some bad PR that will be forgotten in a month anyway.

Since I'm not particularly invested in either side of this, I have to agree with the poster: watching all this chest-thumping is pretty amusing.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not the right thing to do, i don't want facebook to access my gmail contacts, why would I want gmail to have access to my facebook data?
I have little trust in these importers to only import my data into my profile - esp if they ask for user/pass for the external system.
sorry, opt out of both directions.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[BobMcD]

Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .

Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.

I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.

Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[Tacvek]

43067 Searches here. :)

Re:Great. I'm doing it now

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .

Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.

I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.

Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.

I think that's a generous assessment of most people -- seems more likely to me that they're content where they are, and simply don't think so far ahead as needing to take their data and go; remember there's no other popular service out there, so "going" isn't a consideration at all.

Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just say that watching his is absolutely hysterical?

Yes you may, but I don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...Facebook has been the hot social thing of the moment for almost an entire decade. Aren't you edgy with your opinions???

Re:Can I just say...

[RapmasterT]

Yeah...Facebook has been the hot social thing of the moment for almost an entire decade. Aren't you edgy with your opinions???

Facebook didn't overtake Myspace until 2008. Is two years almost a decade in your world?

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the "Now get off my lawn!" line you old fart.

Re:Can I just say...

[CraftyJack]

like watching retarded monkeys fling feces at each other, but miss (because they're retarded) so nothing actually interesting ever happens.

Nothing interesting? People would line up around the block to see a show like that!

Re:Can I just say...

[twidarkling]

Define "overtake." I'd heard about MySpace being in serious decline since at least 2005, which would mean that it wasn't "hot" since before that, so yeah, we're now past 5 years of Facebook being the "up-and-comer"/"hot new thing," which makes it closer to a decade than not. If your definition of "overtake" is simply number of users, or something, then yes, it takes time to overcome the established base of something like that, because hardly anyone ever deletes a profile on stuff like this, they just abandon it. If you've some other metric you're using, I'd like to see it, if just so I can adjust my knowledge base.

Re:Can I just say...

[ferrocene]

Yeah, it's pretty much a fad, just like YouTube, Slashdot, Firefox, Ubuntu, Flickr, Blogger, Wordpress, Twitter and pretty much any other website that has 500 million active users.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of something is not almost something. Do you tell your boss that you're almost done when you're half done?

I'd say about 85% of something is almost something.

Facebook has been the most talked about alternative social tool (alternative to phone calls and SMS) for a number of years that would be rounded to 10 if rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Re:Can I just say...

[asylumx]

You mean like Google?

Re:Can I just say...

[Americano]

Please name the services you foresee overtaking Facebook, rather than simply being bought out / incorporated into Facebook's platform?

Foursquare/Gowalla - with their location-based / mobile services, have been neatly sidestepped by Facebook Places;

Myspace? Well past its prime.

Orkut? Never been a serious contender outside of a few countries (Brazil, India, mostly I believe - and even there, I'd say that rumors of Facebook's demise are greatly exaggerated).

Diaspora, or Appleseed? It'll be the "Year of..." those services one year after we finally see the Year of the Linux Desktop (which as we all know, will take place 7-10 years after the release of Duke Nukem Forever).

There simply isn't a legitimate contender to Facebook's supremacy at this point. Something MAY come along to displace them someday, but your prediction that they'll be supplanted by the "next hot social thing of the moment" is pretty hard to swallow in any timeframe approximating "soon". As Facebook signs up more people (500+ million so far?), it'll be even harder to convince people to move away from "the place I've already got an account" to something new. The new features would have to be incredibly compelling, and there just isn't anything that compelling about any of its competitors at this point, or even on the horizon. You can only "connect to your friends" so many ways over the web.

Re:Can I just say...

[blair1q]

Dude. I'm not even on your lawn.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind him, not liking something popular has been the popular nerd thing for pretty much forever. By not liking, or taking an explicit stance against something popular, they "show" how they are a unique snowflake. What's more fun though, other nerds fall for it. "Ohhhhh.... he's more of a nerd than me....".

Other popular stances.
"I don't have a/watch/like TV"
"I hate M$"
"I haven't used Windows in 50 years!"

Re:Can I just say...

[vux984]

So is facebook still signing up new users faster than old users are abandoning hit? How will we know? I know I never signed up in the first place, but the amount of people in my circle of friends mention facebook is noticeably in decline, former farmville addicts don't log in more than once a week..., I'm not constantly hearing about shit someone or other said on facebook...

In my circle at least, its more relevant than myspace, but its definitely peaked and is fading.

Re:Can I just say...

[dhammond]

I think the question of whether and when Facebook will be supplanted by the Next Hot Social Think (tm) is interesting.

A LOT of people use Facebook A LOT. They depend on it. Businesses increasingly use it too -- a Facebook page is seen as an essential part of marketing and customer management now. In other words, it's not just a hot social thing; it's an integral part of online life for a large portion of the population. Someone could create a new hot social thing right now that is 10 times better than Facebook, and it would still probably take a long time for it to replace Facebook, because most people are perfectly happy with Facebook, and because you can't change your social network as easily as you can change your search engine. Maybe that's what's really bugging Google.

Re:Can I just say...

[Inda]

You aren't alone.

"I haven't logged-on in weeks/months" is something I hear more and more. My wife hasn't logged-on in over a month. I still don't have an account.

What's next kids?

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Slashdot?

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Facebook cause then I don't have to talk to anyone face to face, or over the phone. No random phone calls asking how my life is, or what I am up to. No long, drawn out emails once a year to people that want to 'keep in touch'. I put stuff out there, and people I care about know EXACTLY what I am doing.

Please note, only people that have access are the ones I want to have access, you can't find me by name, and I don't have to have my kids popping in my house at random times saying "What's happening in your life now Mom?".

I can create a conversation with just my kids on "How are we gonna handle Thanksgiving/Christmas" without 50 emails, 9 missed calls, 100 text messages that we gotta fwd: .... Just right there, on one page.

When I say "we are working on X achievement", they know...cause it will pop up on my feed.
When I say "heading to DC" they know it, cause I check in.

AND I can play the mindless games ...

Re:Can I just say...

[ferrocene]

Just for perspective, back in the day, TV advertisements for medium/large companies used to have AOL keywords before they listed their web address.

Now they're saying "find us on Facebook!"

A lot can change in a few years, IT moves fast.

Re:Can I just say...

[Gizzmonic]

There simply isn't a legitimate contender to Myspace's supremacy at this point. Something MAY come along to displace them someday, but your prediction that they'll be supplanted by the "next hot social thing of the moment" is pretty hard to swallow in any timeframe approximating "soon". As Myspace signs up more people (500+ million so far?), it'll be even harder to convince people to move away from "the place I've already got an account" to something new. The new features would have to be incredibly compelling, and there just isn't anything that compelling about any of its competitors at this point, or even on the horizon. You can only "connect to your friends" so many ways over the web.

FTFY. You could say the same thing about Livejournal or Friendster...and yet, they're nearly dead now as well. Some new hotness will pop up to kill Facebook, too.

Re:Can I just say...

[dhammond]

A little more perspective:
In the heyday of AOL, the web was just starting out, and the AOL user base was very small compared to Facebook today. AOL was an ISP for which people had to pay, and there was no penalty for moving to a different ISP as they became available.

I'm not saying Facebook will never be replaced, but as the web matures the bigger players become truly huge and harder to dislodge. And change starts to slow down.

Re:Can I just say...

[RapmasterT]

What's next kids?

If I had to guess, it will be something equally inane and pointless, with a slightly different spin.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither MySpace. Livejournal nor Friendster have ever at any point in their histories had the number of users or total and complete integration into the everyday life of 10% of the planet that Facebook does.

They might have been popular with kids - a _lot_ of kids even, but Facebook is popular with every level of society.

Re:Can I just say...

[Americano]

FTFY. You could say the same thing about Livejournal or Friendster...and yet, they're nearly dead now as well. Some new hotness will pop up to kill Facebook, too.

Actually, there *was* a legitimate contender to Myspace's supremacy: Facebook. And look how that went for the two of them.

Perhaps you'd like to, you know, *read* the comment I make before you assume it's baseless praise? You know, the qualifiers like:

"There simply isn't a legitimate contender... at this point."

"Something MAY come along to displace them someday."

"New features would have to be incredibly compelling, and there just isn't anything that compelling about any of its competitors at this point, or even on the horizon."

As I asked RapMasterT: Please name a company or service that exists today - of any size - which you feel is a *legitimate* threat to Facebook's dominance?

If you can't name one, then everything I wrote stands, in spite your clever attempt to "fix" it for me. Sarcasm and "people said that about Myspace" don't make your point more valid, it just makes you sound like somebody trying to be clever, and missing the point by a mile.

Re:Can I just say...

[Gizzmonic]

Perhaps you'd like to, you know, *read* the comment I make before you assume it's baseless praise? You know, the qualifiers like:

Oh, so you're hedging. "Nothing will replace Facebook, but something might replace Facebook." Way to step out on a limb there.

Please name a company or service that exists today - of any size - which you feel is a *legitimate* threat to Facebook's dominance?

Google and Microsoft are threats today. And if they ever got their shit together, media cartels like the MPAA and cell phone providers could be threats as well. I'm sure people within Facebook recognize this and are acting accordingly.

"New features would have to be incredibly compelling, and there just isn't anything that compelling about any of its competitors at this point, or even on the horizon."

There are no horizons on the Internet. Apple wasn't in the smartphone business 4 years ago. Now they're calling the shots. Facebook itself was a novelty for college kids at this time 4 years ago. Now they're integrated into your TV set. And they can fall just as quickly.

Sarcasm and "people said that about Myspace" don't make your point more valid, it just makes you sound like somebody trying to be clever, and missing the point by a mile.

I don't need to try to be clever. Especially if we're grading on the curve with your posts.

Re:Can I just say...

[DavidRawling]

A LOT of people use Facebook A LOT. They depend on it. Businesses increasingly use it too -- a Facebook page is seen as an essential part of marketing and customer management now. In other words, it's not just a hot social thing; it's an integral part of online life for a large portion of the population. Someone could create a new hot social thing right now that is 10 times better than Facebook, and it would still probably take a long time for it to replace Facebook, because most people are perfectly happy with Facebook, and because you can't change your social network as easily as you can change your search engine. Maybe that's what's really bugging Google.

Hmm. s/Facebook/Second Life/g ... yep still makes sense.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

must be a troll. there are no women on the internet. especially not slashdot. no way could it be a mom.

Re:Can I just say...

[Americano]

Oh, so you're hedging. "Nothing will replace Facebook, but something might replace Facebook." Way to step out on a limb there.

No, I'm stating the conditions in the market right as they appear right now. And that is, that nobody is currently in a position to take over Facebook's cut of the market. I never claimed I was stepping out on a limb, I asked RapMaster to identify which services he felt were a legitimate threat to Facebook. So far, nobody's identified any.

Google and Microsoft are threats today.

Based on...? Because they're "big companies"? What exactly does a media cartel know about social networking?

There are no horizons on the Internet.

Except there are.

I don't need to try to be clever.

Good, because you seem to suck at it.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...Facebook has been the hot social thing of the moment for almost an entire decade. Aren't you edgy with your opinions???

Facebook didn't overtake Myspace until 2008. Is two years almost a decade in your world?

2 dec = 10 bin

Re:Can I just say...

[dhammond]

I guess your definition of "a large portion of the population" is different from mine. I'll let you know when my mom, my niece and the local bakery are all using Second Life.

To each his own

[iluvcapra]

Can I just say that watching his is absolutely hysterical?

Can I just say that watching the founder of slashdot attempt to type a typo- and misspelling-free sentence is absolutely hysterical?

Re:To each his own

[blueg3]

Apparently you're T'd off by typos.

Re:To each his own

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably referring to 'his' object?

Entertaining

[sheetzam]

/me reaches for the popcorn

I'm just posting to say I absolutely don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

> Can I just say that watching his is absolutely hysterical?
You just did.

A battle of the biggest privacy rapists

[GodfatherofSoul]

These are the kinds of epic hypocritical arguments that rend holes in the space-time fabric. It feels like my head is going to explode.

Re:A battle of the biggest privacy rapists

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the kinds of epic hypocritical arguments that rend holes in the face-friend fabric. It feels like my head is going to explode.

FTFY

Unnecessary

[The Yuckinator]

I don't need Google to tell me to not like Facebook.

Re:Unnecessary

[AnonymousClown]

I don't need Google to tell me to not like Facebook.

Let me see Should I hate Facebook

The answer looks like a "Yes."

Re:Unnecessary

[witherstaff]

it'd be much more convenient if google had a FB group setup to complain about facebook that I could just 'like'

Re:Unnecessary

[cschmitzstl]

Where is the like button?

Can I just say...

[RapmasterT]

...that since I don't have a Facebook account, it's less hysterical to me, and more like watching retarded monkeys fling feces at each other, but miss (because they're retarded) so nothing actually interesting ever happens.

I gotta admit I don't get the whole Facebook thing. It seems like just another in the long string of hot social thing of the moment that's going to be supplanted by the next hot social thing of the moment in 3...2...1...

"Looks something like this"?

[Boba001]

I highly doubt Google returns a Internal Server Error:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@digitizor.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at digitizor.com Port 80

Re:"Looks something like this"?

[sconeu]

[AOL] Me too! [/AOL]

Re:"Looks something like this"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt Google returns a Internal Server Error:

I've seen it on some of their pages served by Go. Which is pretty ironic since network programming is what it's supposed to be best at.

Re:"Looks something like this"?

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Try a cached version of the link instead.

Re:"Looks something like this"?

[Boba001]

They should have just linked directly to Google:

http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html

Why doesn't Google just have people play Farmville

[WarmBoota]

....then everyone gets all of your private information...and your friends' private information....and their friends' private information

Whatching HIS is hysterical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching his what is hysterical? And who are you referring to with the pronoun "his"?

Re:Whatching HIS is hysterical?

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco is so gay that his lisp not only changes "s" to "th", but it also changes "th" to "h."

CmdrTaco just said:
hatth not a nithe hing to thay! :sucksdick:

Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Last_Available_Usern]

I loved how I was able to auto-add friends based on my Gmail contacts. It saved me so much time searching and adding manually. I still love how the picture from Facebook is integrated into my contacts automatically on my phone. I'm sure there are other examples I'm overlooking as well. The bottom line is, the data in my contacts in mine. The data on my Facebook site is mine. I'm accepting the risk by sharing the credentials of either site with the other. Take your turf war elsewhere guys and let me have my integration.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The data on my Facebook site is mine.

That's where you have a misunderstanding.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[CraftyJack]

The bottom line is, the data in my contacts in mine. The data on my Facebook site is mine.

shattered illusions in 3...2...

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[qubezz]

Your 'friends' might argue that their email address is theirs. They might appreciate a friend that doesn't give out their email address to data collectors and spammers. It looks like people in your contact list are accepting the risk of knowing you.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[tibman]

You are correct. Now try to reverse the process... ow, not able to get your facebook stuff into Gmail? Well, now you understand why there is a battle.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

The data on my Facebook site is mined.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you give a piece of information to someone, they might give it to others. Welcome to "how the universe works".

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[mverwijs]

> Take your turf war elsewhere guys and let me have my integration.

You *are* the turf in their war, dude.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[KnownIssues]

The data on my Facebook site is mined.

TFTFY

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[m2shariy]

Ow, poor thing, so-o-o many friends, need to automate them

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[PenisLands]

PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS in 3... 2... Heh heh! Oh man!

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The data on my Facebook site is mined

There ya go.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[revlayle]

I'm sure having that data on a website, not owned by you... on servers, not owned by you... moderated by people, you have no control over... accessible by many application APIs, made by developer not caring about what you think about your data.... ALL over a non-secure connection... totally makes it yours. In reality, this data was created by you, and now "owned" by everyone, esp. FB, who can get access to it (which is pretty much anyone, some people with more difficulty over others, i'm sure). So yeah I guess it is "yours" so much as you put money in a bank that says it "yours" but you have no way of making any useful withdrawls or purchases with that money.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Anonymous Coward]

. They might appreciate a friend that doesn't give out their email address to data collectors and spammers.

This war has set me back a whole decade to back when my whole college know my EDU email, in part because it could be derived.

At some point I realized the trap because friends eventually would put you in chain letters and submit you and 10 other friends in a dubious website's webform to enjoy joke emails, or personality/IQ tests. I put out that fire years ago.

Secretive people with common names and "closed" facebook profiles, having no identifying pictures to fool those doing a search for them used to be safe. Now Google wants to warn you the moment FB lets you *willingly suck in google API data*. That Google ever allowed my friends to zoom in on a FB profile this way without warning ME when it was only my interest is what annoys me... Like others, seething at seeing how Google has no "opt out" function to be left out of the sharing altogether.

Re:Why are we getting pulled into this turf war?

[Junior J. Junior III]

> The data on my Facebook site is mine.

That's where you have a misunderstanding.

How do you know? Last_Available_Usern (756093) might be Zuckerberg.

I Did What They Told Me To!

[eldavojohn]

yeah zuckerberg. suck it up. you rode on the web culture getting to where you are. you cannot just go protectionist on us and become a control freak. share data, as others share data with you.

Google told me to complain to Facebook so I did. Then all my friends asked me why I was posting images of child porn on my Facebook wall. So I went back to Google and complained about that and now a Google van slowly circles my house twenty four hours everyday. I went on Google maps to look at my house but there's just an image of a smoldering crater and a Jolly Roger. I logged back on to Facebook and Zuckerberg had killed my farmer and was raping my livestock as the fields burned.

I'm scared. I don't think I'll get in the middle of this kinda stuff next time. You can have all my data locked up, I just want my Farmville to be okay! Why, piggy, why!? I loveded you, I loveded you piggy!

Re:I Did What They Told Me To!

[wickerprints]

Oh I *so* wish I had mod points today. I just about died laughing.

Re:I Did What They Told Me To!

[funaho]

+10 for the Invader ZIM reference ;)

Re:I Did What They Told Me To!

[metrix007]

I guess its funny from a certain perspective....below ground....

Re:I Did What They Told Me To!

[Choad Namath]

I logged back on to Facebook and Zuckerberg had killed my farmer and was raping my livestock

probably in the year
*ear

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this evil?

Size of FB is frightening

[should_be_linear]

Google must be concerned because FB is becoming so big that it looks like Internet 2.0 itself. I bet search volume on FB is getting close to Google.com, and this is not even core business for FB. I hate FB as much as anyone else, but Larry or Sergey should take all their money and buy FB if they don't want to become "that other Internet company".

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

GoogleBook, what a beast!!!

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[Triv]

I bet search volume on FB is getting close to Google.com, and this is not even core business for FB.

You spend WAAAAAAAAAY too much time on Facebook if your perspective on their share of the internet search market is that narrow.

Facebook, as of February, was sitting at 700 status updates a second. Know how many google searches were made every second as of February? 34,000.

So no, not close. Not even close to close.

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[cheesecake23]

Facebook, as of February, was sitting at 700 status updates a second. Know how many google searches were made every second as of February? 34,000.

So no, not close. Not even close to close.

I'd argue that on the usual scales of internetiness, only 1.5 order of magnitude from Google is definitely close to close, and some would argue that it is even closer, perhaps even close. Especially given the fact that more effort is put into typical status updates than typical googling.

And this comes from someone who loathes Facebook as much as he loves Google.

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying "Oh I have a bunch of money and I want to buy this company" doesn't mean that you can buy the company. What makes you think Zuckerberg wants to sell? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google already try to buy Facebook a while back?

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[Ibag]

Except that there is a lot more to do on facebook than status updates (e.g. looking at other people's status updates, playing games, and slowly eroding your privacy in ways you can't even fathom). The number of status updates on FB is NOT the number of searches people do. For the marketing people, a better metric would be "amount of time spent on the site", which is proportional to how much time you spend look at adds. For direct search comparison purposes, status updates is not a good stand in.

So maybe there are only 2% as many status updates as there are google searches, but what about page views or time spent? They say there are "lies, damned, lies, and statistics" because there are lots of different statistics that let you "prove" all sorts of competing points. Don't be that guy who compares apples to oranges. Facebook might not be as big as google by any reasonable measure, but this is not a reasonable way to compare.

Re:Size of FB is frightening

[Triv]

I compared status updates to searches partially because that's what the study I got my numbers from did, and partially because I couldn't find actual data on searches done on FB and figured that comparing two similar but not necessarily congruent actions and letting others estimate for themselves the relationship between updates and searches was more honest than making shit up.

Maybe I use FB differently than other people, but after I found my friends and barring the occasional vanity search, I don't search at all.

(PS. I AM one of those marketing people, just not a, you know, an evil one.)

In love...

[thescreg]

That warning page makes me want to move to Japan and marry Google.

Watching his what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot a noun in the summary.

Slactivism

[lluBdeR]

So has anybody started a Facebook group yet?

Google + Facebook

[The Living Fractal]

Seems like they should stop all of this foreplay and just get a room already.

Re:Google + Facebook

[Americano]

And watch for the results of that in an adult video section near you:

"DP Debutantes, Vol. 2: Google and Facebook give Your Privacy the double-teaming it's been dying for!"

Coming soon!

I just posted a complaint...

[lusiads]

For FREE. And for those who are going to import GContacts to FB just to post a complaint, you can do it here http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html

Just end facebook already

[Anonymous Coward]

Google needs to implement and market revenue sharing in a simliar social networking site. Those of you that run community sites (outside of tech) that have a strong social side know where most of your traffic comes from... Women. Particularly attractive ones and those that show pictures. (fake or not) Mix that in with celebrities, gossip, personal information rampant and you have the #2 website knocking on Google's door. With high traffic usually comes high ad revenue, and the users don't see a dime of it.

Who's Laughing Now?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Can I just say that watching this is absolutely hysterical?

I doubt it will as funny 'Taco, when Google decide to pull the same stunt with Slashdot. We're witnessing a pivot event in that companies history and culture.

This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power. What happens if they find they like it?

Re:Who's Laughing Now?

[anyGould]

This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power. What happens if they find they like it?

I'm not sure how much of an Evil Move this is. To me it's looking like they're trying to stop Facebook from running an "embrace and extend" gambit, where FB lets everything in and nothing out. Considering they're both starting to compete in the social market, I can't say I wouldn't be having the same response to a competitor who wants everything going in one direction.

A proper power move would have been a small tweak that breaks the API when Facebook calls. Make the error message imply that it's a problem on Facebook's end.

Re:Who's Laughing Now?

[Chapter80]

This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power.

Huh?

Net Neutrality, Spectrum Auction, Defining the mobile platform, and battling Microsoft all immediately come to mind as times that Google has attempted to wield power.

I'm sure we could come up with others if we thought about it.

Re:Who's Laughing Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still freakin hilarious, like 2 younger brothers constantly bickering and finding different ways to get their brother in trouble.
CAPTCHA: spastic

Mark Zuckerbutt vs. Eric Shmuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: "after all, you should have control over your data."*

Me: "Yes, Eric, irreversibly and irretrievably delete all of my data."

Google: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

* http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html

Re:Mark Zuckerbutt vs. Eric Shmuck

[Stuntmonkey]

How many gmail accounts get hacked each month because of weak passwords? It happens quite often. Until authentication methods improve on the web, I would rather not be able to irretrievably delete my last 7 years of email with a few clicks. Call me paranoid, but I think my brand of paranoia is more justified than yours.

Re:Mark Zuckerbutt vs. Eric Shmuck

[spire3661]

DO you not keep an offline local copy of your email? Around here we have another word for that kind of paranoia: Stupidity.

Re:Mark Zuckerbutt vs. Eric Shmuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you delete an e-mail forever in GMail, it's still never deleted. It's still stored on Google's servers so it's actually impossible to permanently delete anything that goes into GMail.

Re:Mark Zuckerbutt vs. Eric Shmuck

[Stuntmonkey]

The AC I responded to claimed this is a bug, I claim it's a feature. Until authentication improves I would rather there *not* be a way to irreversibly delete my data from Google's servers. If Google supported stronger authentication like a hardware token then I might change my view.

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Facebook give out all my friends email addresses out when it won't even tell me them?

Make it open!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a real problem for me with Facebook. I would be willing to use Facebook more often if they provided some way of downloading / exporting data back out.

I like social networking, but having migrated from Friendster to MySpace to Facebook, I now store a lot of data across different services. (Twitter, Flickr, a wordpress site). I know 10 years from now there will be another 'facebook', so I really limit how many eggs I'm putting in the closed basket.

MAKE IT OPEN MARK!

Re:Why doesn't Google just have people play Farmvi

[bonch]

Puts too much control in the user's hands. Better to drive a van around town "accidentally" collecting your emails and passwords over the course of three years.

Bad Blood

[jimmerz28]

I thought Google couldn't make any more waves since Mr. Rasmussen left?

Not apples to apples

[jfine]

I can certainly appreciate Google's stance on the subject. I've been saying for years its reprehensible how Facebook acts as a one way silo for personal information. They've gotten a bit better about it but only after getting raked over the preverbal coals for months and months. Frankly I don't trust Facebook as far as I can throw them which at their current size is close to nothing. Facebook has demonstrated time and time again that their focus is not on protecting users and providing value to the web. In fact quite the opposite, to move towards a AOLy version of the web where Facebook is the web. They're only as "open" as much as it benefits them, ie reduced PR exposure or added page views or users. However, this comparison is not an apples to apples. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong or things could have changed as they do on almost a daily basis at Facebook) that when you "import" friends from Google (or any other service) that Facebook is simply providing a matching service and only adding friends if they exist on Facebook. They are not acting as a contact list provider in the sense that I can not import my dogs website nor change my friends phone number if I like to use his home number instead of his cell number for his main number etc. Although it could be agreed that with all your friends on Facebook they are by default playing the roll of contact list and are not being fairly bi-directional. Facebook wants you messaging your friends within the confines of the system (more page views, more lock in, more details they can scrape about you) and is the main reason why they don't want you exporting your contacts.

watching rich kids fight

[TXISDude]

This is like watching two rich kids fight, neither has experience in kicking ass the old fashioned way, they both want to buy the solution - I say bring on the lawyers, they need the money

Re:watching rich kids fight

[Flipao]

No, it's about a seeder and a leecher. I'll let you figure out which is which.

Re:watching rich kids fight

[Beerdood]

I say bring on the lawyers, they need the money

Hold on a second. Are you super - duper sure you want to get lawyers involved in this issue?

Here's the not-so-fine print. Lawyers have been and always will be the blood sucking leeches that they are until the end of time that serve little or no purpose to most people and generally contribute more to stagnation than progress. Lawyers also most certainly do NOT "need the money"

This public service announcement is brought to you on behalf of your friends on slashdot

Re:watching rich kids fight

[TXISDude]

First, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I do believe that lawyers play an important balancing and cleansing function in the marketplace. If things get out of balance, lawyers can act as a balancing force, chewing up excesses. In a perfect world, we would not need laws, nor would we need lawyers. We don't live in a perfect world, so, hence we need these control structures. If we don't like what they do, then we need to take the appropriate actions to avoid interactions. If you think addressing risk is expensive, wait until you address outcomes when risk was ignored . . . So - back to the point - is the market functioning efficiently, or is it broken - the legal system is a part of the control mechanism for free markets, get used to it and use it wisely.

I just want to complain

[lpaul55]

... so I followed the link in the article and checked the Register Complaint box and hit "Go"

Taking the term User-Firendly to a whole new level

[MrMadnutz]

N/T

Get a room!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and Facebook should just get a room already. I present to you... Facele! Goobook!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You may look. You may touch. But its not your "Facebook site".

What's the big deal

[HarvardAce]

Am I the only one that doesn't see why this is such a huge deal? Facebook offers a convenient way to import a person's contact list into their site. They do not offer any convenient way to extract contact information out of their site. They have never offered a convenient way to export data from their site in their near 7 years of existence, and I've never heard big complaints about it. Solution: don't treat Facebook as your single source of a contact list. That's what other programs are for.

I understand there are privacy issues and whatnot, but that's not what this article is about. This article is complaining that a service allows you to import data but not export it. It's not like if I use Facebook's utility to import my gmail contact list that it is suddenly gone from gmail and never accessible again -- it's still sitting there for export into some other service.

Funny thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that this wouldn't even be an issue if Facebook would've said "ok, lets share those silly users info". No news, no google page with a complaint, etc...

Google is doing it wrong, but it's good for us at least xD!

Cheers! XD!

The Chinese counterpart

[microbee]

QQ-360 Battle Escalates into War.

Always fun to watch.

Could this Backfire?

[DavidD_CA]

I see Facebook starting a class action against Google, claiming that they are limiting the rights of its users to access their own data in a way that they are volunteering to do.

Further, Facebook could sue directly saying that Google is unfairly limiting Facebook's access to the API whereas other organizations are not limited. Why target just Facebook?

And where are all the Slashdot Freedom Fans? Why aren't you crying fowl against Google for limiting what YOU can do with YOUR data that Google is holding hostage?

Re:Could this Backfire?

[angloquebecer]

How about the fact Google doesn't stop you at all? You can still click to go ahead with the gmail export. Google is trying to make all the non-Slashdot-Freedom-Fans aware that while Google lets you export your data freely, Facebook doesn't offer the same benefi.ts

Re:Could this Backfire?

[AlXtreme]

Google isn't limiting Facebook's access, Google is warning users that they're giving away their contact information. That's hardly "limiting the rights of its users" or "holding data hostage".

This is Google's API. You don't have a right unless Google gives it to you. Facebook isn't allowed to easily leach off of GMail users contactlists, boohoo. At most it will give the judge a laugh before he throws it out.

Besides, the Slashdot Freedom Fans don't give their data to Google in the first place. They also drag any "friend" who does share his contact list with Facebook out on the street and shoot them. I'd defend that as a mercy killing.

You are wrong

[brunes69]

Facebook knows a lot more than you think, and they know a lot more about you than Google.

The stuff Google knows about is things on aggregate. They don't and can't "read your emails". The stuff Facebook knows is based on social networks, and very intimate.

Facebook knows what religion you are affiliated with, what part you vote for, what area of the city you live in, where you like to shop, where you work, etc. It knows your music preferences, movie preferences, and if you are likely to be a racist. And it knows all this stuff **without you inputting any of it**, simply because of the friends you keep and what **they** input, and their friends, etc etc.

And if you think Facebook *DOESN'T* know about this, you should see what their actual advertisement purchase page looks like, and the groups of people you can target - because most of the things I inputted above are specifically targettable for ads ("ie "Only show this ad to Christians living in Chicago"). Even Google does not have this creep-out factor.

Re:You are wrong

[427_ci_505]

They can't read my emails? Unless I'm mistaken, don't they control the servers my email is stored on?

Re:You are wrong

[BobMcD]

I'm not sure what the Parent meant, exactly, but I'd assume that they simply lack the available bandwidth to do so in the magnitude necessary to glean what Facebook requires your friends to do in order for their site to have any use at all.

Google: the lesser evil

[turing_m]

When it comes to deciding between facebook and google, google is clearly the lesser evil in my mind. Google at least appears to respect privacy, though they know everything you do. They also attempt to do some stuff that benefits the greater good of humanity with their wealth. This is a good thing.

(Now, if you could just bring back the "page previews" that you could select under "more search tools" that has been absent for a day or two now, I'd be a lot happier.)

no

[unity100]

apparently you didnt read the news that came up a few days ago. since a long while facebook has been importing gmail contacts of people, and google has been letting it. when google wanted to do the same, facebook refused. then when google took off that api that facebook used for importing contacts, facebook found another roundabout way to do it. now they are taking the gmail username/passwords from their users, and logging into their gmail accounts to import contacts. and google started complaining to users about it. the morons that are posing as users who are idiot enough to give a service a critical user/pass that allows access to all other services a major provider offers.

thats the situation. so, the fuckers here are the facebook.

Re:Suck it up Zuck

[jenningsthecat]

(Firefox, sadly not Chrome (yet?)).

AdBlock on Chrome? Not gonna happen man. Think about it - where does the provider of Chrome get most of its revenue from?

Re:Suck it up Zuck

[jlarocco]

Is that a joke? There are a bunch of ad blockers for Chrome. My favorite is AdThwart. But the regular AdBlock works well also. They're at least as good, if not better, than the ad blockers available for Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror.

sounds like GPL vs BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

eg. "i give, you give" vs "i give, you dont need to give"

Re:Suck it up Zuck

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that these adblocking programs, last I checked, are not able to prevent your browser from requesting the information in the first place.

The problem? It's slow. I'm wasting time loading ads from some other place, and if I live in an area with high latency to the ad network or if I have problems with the amount of bandwidth the ads use due to a data cap... chrome does not help!

This was, and is, the only reason I will not use chrome as my primary browser.

Buy Facebook, or better....

[DrYak]

but Larry or Sergey should take all their money and buy FB if they don't want to become "that other Internet company".

...or, they could buy Diaspora*, GNU Social, and the like, then throw ressource and developpers at it (join the efforts of buzz ?) and try to develop a nice *decentralised* and *federated* social network system.

Then patiently wait (while still polishing the quality of the result) until the next usual FB privacy-blunder. Serve the now million-sized complain to FB, and publicly complain about how then don't do anything about it.
Publicy announce "Google DiaSocialZZ" (or whatever) and let the thing roll.

Okay, maybe Google has had a recent row of flops in its stint in the social world (Wave closed, Buzz un popular).
On the other hand they also have had excellent success when picking up the correct startup (Android, Docs, etc.).

So they might have success opposing FB, or at least bringing standards into the social realm (FB got already forced into standard regarding their chat system and an XMPP interface)
And given the giant that FB has become, Google probably is the only one with the necessary ressources to succeed.

PS:
Along the way, they could buy Zynga, too. For Google social, Android (phones, TV) and Chrome OS ports of games.

a new page on Google's server

[RichiH]

Cause there can only be one.