It seems that I’m finding more and more people that are complaining about Facebook not being a truly “open” platform because it doesn’t let your information out. By keeping all of your data private, and within their system, they aren’t truly open. Or so the theory goes. I’ve written before on what I think about that. I’m not talking just about whether or not we can call it open, though. I’m talking about people complaining that user’s data is kept inside the system. I’m willing to admit that I might be missing something here, but to me, this sounds like the stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard about Facebook. I am baffled at why people would be upset that a company keeps your information so private. Isn’t privacy a big topic right now? Isn’t a company that keeps all your data under tight lock and key a good thing? Facebook isn’t selling this information, they aren’t letting people just gather all this information to use for their own purposes, they are just keeping everything locked up. I don’t want Google to be indexing my Facebook page. I don’t want someone to be able to download all of my data in a convenient Excel file. I should probably point out that this “closed” system they have didn’t use to exist. There was a time where you could click a button and download everything. I actually have a file with about 41,000 people’s contact info in it that I got years ago. It was just a simple export from Facebook. Tell me, do you really want them to go back to that? I’m perfectly happy with Facebook keeping my data behind closed doors, and I’m willing to bet that nearly all of its users feel the same way. I think that the vocal people complaining are definitely the minority view, but it concerns me that they are so vocal. The very people generating all of the buzz for Facebook are also the ones that are saying this. So please, someone explain to me why this would be a good thing for everyone. Either that, or stop complaining about it, and start complementing Facebook for keeping my stuff private.
Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’
Oh, Snap, Guys! Facebook Keeps Your Private Data Private
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007Kottke Is Wrong…Sorta
Tuesday, July 17th, 2007Oh goodness, where to even begin here. I started off with reading a post on Read/Write Web about how open Facebook really is. This started off by saying that despite their claims, Facebook really is not as open as they claim. MacManus says that he found that most people agree Facebook is not an open platform in the true sense. I only half agree with this one. When I hear Facebook say that they are an “open” platform, I interpret that as meaning that they are a welcoming platform. They allow developers write applications for, and integrate with, their platform. Rather than an iPhone, they are a desktop computer, for instance. By the same token that Windows, OSX and Linux are not “open” in that just writing something for one does not make it work on all, Facebook is not “open” either. What is important here, though, is that Facebook is the only social network service that has a large user base, and welcomes outside development. So while it could be accurate to say that Facebook is not open, I don’t see this as being as bad as it might sound. Also, I don’t think that Facebook is in error by calling themselves open, as I think they are referring to their welcoming developers.
Next, the article goes on to examine a point made by Jason Kottke that Facebook is the new AOL. Again, I’m not sure if I fully agree here. I think that they share similarities, in that they are something of a walled garden. The difference, I believe, is that Facebook’s “wall” is permeable. Many applications that have been created are tie-ins from other outside sources. For instance, with an application for Flickr, users can pull in outside data, and integrate it with their Facebook profile. This works both ways. There are other apps that take things you do in Facebook, and then tie those into their own external sites. This flow of information is far from a true walled garden. Kottke goes on to say that part of what makes Facebook so closed is that the data on it is completely private, and not even indexed by search sites. I have to wonder just what Kottke is smoking. Who would want their profile pages indexed? This is one of my annoyances with MySpace. I don’t want my Facebook information available on Google. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people agree with me on this one. Jason seems to find fault with the fact that interaction happens in private. That is part of the appeal of Facebook, not a hindrance. This is also where it does tie back to AOL, though. The difference is in the flow of information via the apps that are created; the similarity is in user information. To me, this is a pretty nice blend.
MacManus concludes that Facebook is a good development platform, but is not an open form. He goes on to answer the question of how this matters by pointing out that closed platforms don’t end well, pointing out AOL and Microsoft. On AOL, I believe that Facebook demonstrates enough of a difference to have a much better chance at success. Remember, AOL failed for multiple reasons, not just because they were a walled garden. Added to this that Facebook isn’t a true walled garden, I don’t think foreshadowing AOL’s fate is a fair comparison. As for Microsoft, aren’t all operating systems inherently closed platforms based on the standards people are applying to Facebook? By that account, I think Microsoft is doing alright for themselves while still being a closed system.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off the mark on this one?
Musical Choices of Morons
Wednesday, June 27th, 2007In the ongoing aftermath of Danah Boyd’s paper about MySpace and Facebook users, Mashable looks at some interesting data from the two. They’ve taken the top music picks from the two sites and compared them. In a disclaimer, they say that they only have access to the Maryland stats on Facebook, not the entire site. Their intent was to be fairly unbiased, and just to report what they found. I don’t find their results too surprising. The music preferences on Facebook are what might be considered “classier,” in that there aren’t rappers in there with songs about shooting people and humping like rabbits. That might not be the best term, but you get what I mean. Taken in a purely stereotypical view, the contrasting musical choices play along quite well with her paper, and with my opinion of MySpace users.
Semi-Scientific Study Proves My Point…Sorta
Monday, June 25th, 2007I first found this article earlier this morning, but just now have had time to read it. The piece is by Danah Boyd and is titled Viewing American Class Divisions Through MySpace and Facebook. It’s a pretty interesting piece, and I encourage you to read it. Personally, I don’t feel like I necessarily learned anything new, per se, but it was definitely a good piece. Her basic premise is that the “higher” socio-economic class teens go to Facebook, and the “lower” ones are on MySpace. To this, I say, “Well duh.” The interesting part is to see this being said by something that has spent over six months talking to teens around the country and logging thousands of hours online looking at social networking sites. My opinion of these sites are basically based on a few minutes of surfing, and talking to a handful of people. Yet, her conclusion mirrors mine. One of the interesting tidbits she has is a good summary.
The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other “good” kids are now going to
Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and
going to college. They are part of what we’d call hegemonic society. They are
primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking
forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens,
“burnouts,” “alternative kids,” “art fags,” punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer
kids, and other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity
paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn’t go to college, who are expected to
get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into
the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a
band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially
ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.
While I don’t think I’d necessarily call the kids on Facebook “goodie two shoes,” and she does go on to say she’s seen more debauchery on Facebook than MySpace, I think that the point is accurate.
It is very interesting to look at the development of the different social networks, and where they are now. When Friendster first came along, I got my hands on an invite and created my profile. After a few months of being one of two in my network, I started to realize that no one was getting on there.
I avoided MySpace for a long time because I never had a high opinion of it. The ugliness was just too much to make me want to be associated with it. When I finally did create a profile, I immediately replaced the default theme with one that was much cleaner and wrote about how much I hated the site. I even gave links to examples of horrible profiles, and why MySpace should be outlawed. I’ve since erased everything on my account, and have blocked the MySpace domain. Many of the people I found on MySpace were people that I knew from high school who did not go to college, and with whom I wanted no association because they were morons.
Facebook was a very different story. I was one of the people pushing to get my school added, and once it was I was the 8th person from it to sign up. Upon joining, I already had about two dozens friends there, and this was when there still weren’t that many schools. Trying to convince my school colleagues to sign up was a bit harder, though, since when they thought of social networks they thought of MySpace. Now, though, my school has thousands of people on Facebook.
I think that what it comes down to is who got on there first. As Danah mentions, Facebook was founded in the Ivy League schools. It makes sense that it is going to attract the upper educated crowd because likes attract likes. By the same principle, the urban kids that were in bands on MySpace are going to attract their friends.
Brad Feld is an Idiot
Monday, June 25th, 2007Brad Feld, as well as many developers of Facebook apps, seem to misunderstand how reality works. They think that simply creating an app on Facebook and getting a bunch of users is magically going to give them money. The thing they’re missing is that they have to actually have a business plan that works in order for them to get money. Going out and signing up hundreds of thousands of users is great and all, but if you haven’t thought about how you’re going to make money off of them, then that’s your own dumb fault. All that Facebook provides is a platform. It’s not their job to get you users or money. This is akin to a software developer getting mad at Microsoft because they made a Windows application but no one bought it. If your product has no value, of course you’re not going to get any money from it. You have to be able to see how you can monetize the benefit that Facebook provides. Getting a huge user base really quickly on Facebook is, relatively speaking, a simple thing. Once you get them, you have to use them to either generate revenue through a service you have, or via targeting advertising. If you have 200k users, and haven’t made a single penny then one of two things is true. Either you don’t have any sort of plan, and your lack of revenue is your fault, or your plan sucks and your lack of revenue is your fault. Either way, you need to reevaluate your approach and stop thinking that your problems are Facebook’s fault.
RIPL Only a Drop in the Bucket
Friday, June 22nd, 2007
Do You Like iLike?
Wednesday, June 13th, 2007It seems like everywhere I turn I’m reading about how fast the iLike application is growing on Facebook. In about two week’s time they have garnered over 3 million users on the site. It is currently the second most popular application. I am not one of those 3 million, but many of my friends are. I don’t plan to speak for the application, as I don’t know if it is good, bad, or what. I’m more interested in the speed in which it is growing, and the amount of attention it has received. Its growth rate, as has been mentioned a number of times, is largely due to the viral nature of Facebook’s applications. When someone adds one, an entry is added to their mini-feed and posted to their friends’ main feeds (depending on settings). This means that if you have a good number of friends, the simple act of adding an application advertises it to a large number of people. On top of this, these are not just ads that are on the side of the screen. These have your implicit endorsement, which means other people are more likely to add them as well. If they do add them, it is posted to their feeds, and just propagates out. This means that in a matter of a few hours, thousands of people can potentially see an application multiple times simply because one person added it.
The rabid adoption rate is a double edged sword. In iLike’s case, they outgrew their servers very quickly, and had to scramble to get more. If you don’t have the ability to scale exponentially in a very short amount of time, you’re screwed. On the other hand, it means that the time it takes to make it big can be cut drastically. If you have something that you can monetize, the lead time for it will be shorter. This is definitely a good thing.
There is something interesting here, though. How quickly will the saturation point be reached? When the growth rate is practically a straight line going up, it is near impossible to keep that up for long. Not for any fault on the application’s part, but simply because they run out of people. This means that once they hit this point, there is no way to grow other than to offer new things to existing users. When your growth rate is slower, you have more time to plan for this, and to roll things out to keep people interested. Will something like iLike be able to do the same on a faster basis? Will they need to? People can be finicky, and like things that are new and interesting. If everyone is using the application from day one, I would think that a boredom factor would begin to set in. The novelty factor can only carry on for so long. Is it possible that iLike will get the same grace period as other apps that take longer to become popular? I am really curious, I have no idea. Part of me wants to think that this thing could skyrocket up, and then be forgotten within a few months. The other part of me thinks that they will be able to keep people interested long enough to offer something else. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens. Their growth can only go on for so long (after all, there are only so many Facebook users), but I imagine there will be a while longer where we see this happening.
The other interesting part of all of this is the coverage that this is getting. The success of iLike is being told and re-told, and will likely serve as a blueprint. The coverage also just helps to drive more people to look into what iLike is, and what other applications Facebook has to offer. It also is making sites like MySpace scramble to come up with something to compete. This is all free publicity for both Facebook, their new platform, and applications like iLike. It is definitely the hot topic right now.
All of this is pretty exciting stuff. I’ll continue to read about it and pass along info. Also, I share a lot on Facebook that I don’t necessarily write about on here so take a look at my posted items there for some more info.
Where Does This Put Your IQ?
Wednesday, May 30th, 2007I meant to write this on Sunday or Monday, but was lazy. Then I meant to write about it yesterday, but it was a busy day at work, and when I got home I was distracted.
When I first saw Michael Arrington’s post at TechCrunch titled “MySpace v. Facebook: ‘It’s Not A Decision. It’s an IQ Test’” my first thought was, “Well duh.” When I read it, though, it turns out that he was talking about 3rd party people chosing a network to target. The choice would be between MySpace with its massive user base but unfriendly tactics, or Facebook with its smaller user base and open API which allows developers to keep any revenue they make. If you’re a developer, this is a pretty simple decision. Facebook is much more friendly towards 3rd parties, and they have an incredible “stickiness,” which refers to how often users are there.
The quote, though, extends to beyond just developers. I think it works for the users too. To give an example, my friend said something along these lines a couple years ago.
I had to join MySpace to be with my friends from high school since you had to go
to college to get on Facebook.
This was, of course, before Facebook opened up to anyone. Even still, though, the type of person that gets on Facebook just seems to be different. I think that this is largely based on Facebook’s origins, but I also think it has to do with the way they’ve made their site. Facebook is a clean, well designed, stable site. It doesn’t experience horrible loading speeds, downtimes, or the abilty to have 5 videos load on a page at the same time. The appeal of Facebook is the more intelligent design that went into its creation. The better interface appeals to a more sophisticated crowd. Look at car commercials for an analogy. Kia commercials are loud, flashy, and generally incite homicidial thoughts in me. By contrast, a Lexus commercial is quiet, simple, and makes you feel relaxed. Same concept here. The class of people that get on Facebook are just a different breed than the MySpace crowd.
MySpace and Facebook in Bed Together?
Thursday, May 24th, 2007The last couple of days I have been having some problems with Facebook. For some reason, their stylesheets were not loading, so the site didn’t really work. This aggravated me quite a bit. I really have not used Facebook much lately for anything beyond sharing interesting articles that I don’t post on here. This feature did not work, though, due to the site being broken for me. I first thought that something was being blocked by my ad blocking program. I disabled that, reloaded, and still no avail. I thought maybe there was something wrong with IE, so I switched to Firefox to check, and still no luck. This started on Tuesday, but I had not done anything that could possibly be causing this outcome, so I just assumed it was an oddity and would resolve itself. Yesterday, though, I got a surprise. When I got on in the morning, everything was working fine. However, in the afternoon, when I looked again, it was broken. This time, though, something caught my eye. A bit down the page I had the message telling me the site had been blocked by the administrator. This is the message displayed when you try to access a site that has been blocked at my router. The thing is, I only have one thing blocked there, and that is MySpace. When I logged into the router, remove the block, and checked Facebook again everything worked perfectly. Wanting to test this out, I put the block back, and checked again, but everything was still just fine. As of today, it is still working just fine. So why on earth was I seeing something that could have only happened if something on Facebook was referencing MySpace, but then it just goes away? I’ve been over the source code on the page a couple times, and still have come up with nothing. I am joking when I imply that there is any sort of real link between the two; it just really makes me wonder, though.
I Hate These People
Thursday, May 24th, 2007Perhaps the fact that this came from a site called MLM Forums I shouldn’t be too surprised by what it says. They outline, in I assume seriousness, a plan on how to promote your business on Facebook. What the heck? First off, this seems like a rather simple approach, and I don’t know why someone would need to be told how to do this. More importantly, though, is that Facebook is not meant to be used as a promotion tool. It is a networking site, and if you want to try to network and meet new people and tell them what you do, that’s one thing, but if you just want to use it as an advertising platform I am going to not like you. Given that they have recently added a marketplace, I assume that it’s more likely people will post things there as opposed to making them a shared item. As far as I’m concerned, the shared item things should be used for sharing interesting/funny/apocalyptic things, not ads.
