Epic Gillmor Gang today. Everyone went in with guns blazing over the data portability/ownership debate that has spilled out over the Facebook/Google scuffle. DataPortability founder Chris Saad was also on the call, but failed to take a leadership position in the debate (he did, however, weigh in with a blog post on the subject before the call). Their influence may be waning.
As the podcast ended the blog posts started rolling in.
Marc Canter, who I accuse of compromising his position as a thought leader in the data portability debate simply because Facebook is suddenly telling him everything he wants to hear, says that his position hasn’t changed (nevertheless, it has). Robert Scoble simply apologized for being on the wrong side of the issue, yet again. And Dan Farber, a Gillmor Gang regular who missed the call, picked up on the analogy to the founding fathers writing the Bill of Rights and wrote about it here.
All in all, the group seems to be in alignment after the talk. Data ownership is an important issue that cannot be left in the big co.’s hands. Because if it is, they’ll serve their interests first, and that will lead to more walled gardens.
I think it can be left in a big companies hands as long as the big company keeps user privacy as priority numero uno.
If it wasn’t for Facebook recognizing the fact that there is more to social networking then just data mining, we would never be at this point of, “what is the right way to export the social graph” outside of the “walled gardens.” Facebook has control over the most real social connections and the largest collection of user photos on the internet — all in all they have the most accurate representation of a the social graph, as we know it.
Facebook did NOT get this way by having lax rules on privacy. We all know they have VERY strong privacy regulations. That is NOT the issue, we all feel relatively safe giving Facebook our data…
So why are we so scared to let Facebook rule the Data Portability space? As long as they use open standards, I really don’t see the issue with letting them control how we get our data out…
Someone has to hold the keys to the gate of the walled gardens. Someone has to control that data, store that data on their harddrives and only allow people with the right credentials in — if not you will have a HUGE spam issue.
Why not let the company with the most real social connections, and the company that has kept privacy a top priority?
Why should they allow someone to piggy back (GOOG) on their success and right software to swoop in and undermine what they have been trying to setup for quite awhile?
Again Mike, as the founder, owner and updater of http://www.sitespaces.net
I would have no problem with people exporting user data in raw XML, with default privacy settings allowing people to do that, but settable to stop the exporting of their data, if they take that extra step in the account settings.
BUT, BUT, BUT
Does AT&T, Spring, verizon let you SMS for free?
Of course not.
Each exported user’s data would cost $0.10, per user, per time.
Does iTunes let you redownload music after you downloaded it once without paying? Of course not.
Stop being communists. Some of us have business plans. I had to pay $1200 today to rent another car for 2 months in long beach while I wait for my CA license to register my new car. Somebody has to pay somewhere. It costs money to create and maintain and advertise the sites. Companies should pay to interchange data. <– That’s a period.
Of course by Spring, I meant Sprint, it was a typo.
My favorite part of the call was at the very end when Steve Gillmor had a huge grin on his face – mission accomplished!
It’s weird that you said “epic”. You get 50 cool points for today.
Aren’t there more important data openness/portability issues in the world then myspace/facebook/google? What about your personal financial, business, medical, or legal information? There are websites that have business based around selling that information to the highest bidder where the “owners” of the information have no control over it. If you want to talk about data, let’s talk about something more important.
Your data is your data, but Facebook isn’t obligated to allow you to push your data to, or have your data pulled by, another site via Facebook services.
Customer data is THE most important asset in any business. Technology can be copied on by the competition or improved upon by internal teams, but customers are the scarcest of all the elements which make-up a profitable business.
Losing a customer is one thing, but losing their data means reconnecting with them in the future much more difficult.
Scoble and friends would gladly pay $120 a month to have AT&T stream telecom to and from his iPhone via their servers, but at the same time would never want people to pay to put a strain on anything service that labels itself social.
If MySpace had charged just $5 per user, they would have made 3 times what they sold themselves to newscorp for.
I won’t make the same mistake. there is a way to get $5 per user w/o having them directly pay for the site. One way is selling raw XML but my BPlan outlines a number of ways.
If OpenID and other data portability layers do not factor in compensation for the server strain, the maintence and other factors that cause $$$ damages for using any one nexus for information then NO ONE will use it.
Why do millions of retailers use Paypal?
Why don’t they want to use a user portability layer. The answer is the very same. Don’t create data portability with ideals in mind, build it with capitalism in mind.
We already have great RFCs for transferring data with XML. We don’t need another specification. It’s not about how the data is transfered. It’s about money. That’s why it’s not.
Interesting comment re Chris Saad and DP’s influence waning – on the face of it this does appear to be the case. The players have picked up the ball and are running with it.
That said it will be interesting to see how Chris deals with this – he does not strike me the type to behave aggressively and make loud posturing – this may turn out to be biggest asset in moving the game onto a more level playing field.
Saying my position has changed – just because I like something they (Facebook) says – is wrong. They have the chance to actually DO dynamic privacy controls. That doesn’t mean they WON’T do it, but clearly they haven’t done doodley squat – yet.
Our job is to stay on their asses and see if they’re full of shit or not.
Just saying that I like what they’re saying – does not mean that my position has changed. You falsely accused me, before you had even read my posts on The Religion of Bringing Social to Software. Read it – please.
I am leading the way – towards the open mesh. And to do that we WILL need to mesh into the behemoths – even if they are controlling their user’s data.
NOT meshing into them would be pretty stupid – wouldn’t you agree?
So why can’t we have our ideals AND reach out? I don’t see why that’s a bad thing.
I believe YOUR opinion is wrong here – oh holier than thou Time 100 guy. Next time you’re puffing on one of those capitalist cigars, thinking about being elite and all, think of us peons down in the trenches, actually building systems for real customers.
That’s where the rubber hits the road.
Very interesting stuff…
Marc – read the post when you first sent it to me. It was written before you had your “moment with Morin” yesterday, and the things you said on the call today were all about negotiated compromise…thus my opinion is that your position has changed.
Again proves that data portability is not a technical issue… no technical blueprints will solve the dp problem.. it’s all politics.. driven of cos by money money money — always.
Sorry, but I’m still not buying the data portability call to arms as a consumer advocacy problem. Are you just too lazy to copy and paste your music and activity interest lists from Facebook/MySpace into whatever new social network you might join?
Boo hoo.
You are wrong Mike – but not about Facebook
http://chrissaa...about-facebook/
I agree with you Mike – but frankly, where I sway slightly away from you is that i think why rush this? Lets wait till everything is right, feels right and works right. We’re still far too early on in the path to true data portablity combined with us owning our own data to even imagine this happening properly right now.
I think we’re still very much at the point of…dont put anything on the web that you wouldn’t share with a real friend.
Negotiated compromise has never entered my vernacular.
What we seem to disagree about is attitude. You think that we have to have flame wars, act rude and hate Facebook. I don’t think that’s necessary.
They know my opinion – so why belabor it? By me reaching out to them and applauding them for the right ideals in their dynamic privacy approach, that can only lead to MORE openness.
Dude – we’ve been playing that game with Microsoft for years. You think they CARE about what I say? But yet – they’re gradually moving forward.
I don;t get to get credit for it – but Dare Obasanjo does.
Just cause I go to Mix 06, 07 and 08 does not mean I trust Microsoft – yet look at the progress there – over the past 3 years? So its entirely possible we’ll look back on FB 2 years from now and see progress.
That’s not called compromise – no matter which way you spin it.
I’m the one who stands up and calls Zuckerberg on these issues. You’ve discovered recently what I’ve been talking about and taking the hits on and am blacklisted for – for YEARS!
So please don’t lecture me on idealism.
When I see progress – I laud them. But that doesn’t mean I trust them – or that they’re there – yet. But simply writing off my attraction to ‘dynamic privacy’ as compromise is bullshit.
If you think what I have to say is so important tell your biddies to get me speaking slots at their conferences. Help me organize panels where we can air these issues – in front of a lot of people. Help us move this train forward.
But please don’t bitch at ME about being compromised – cause its just not true.
Dan Farber! Scoble! Arrington! all yammering at the same time at shit that won’t turn up right 90% of the time.
In a word ‘douchebaggery’.
Support for Canter – off the cuff comments aside, Marc has arguably been the most consistent advocate for the type of open architectures every company (except Chris above?) gives lip service to nowadays. So has Mike for that matter so why don’t you just shake hands and upload friend profiles?
Can we declare a moratorium on this conversation until Monday morning? I’m tired. I want to relax.
But first: WHERE IS THE USER? Will the user care if Grump One changed his mind? Or Grump Two is compromising? Or Grump Three is just stirring the pot?
I know, I know, without the brilliant engineers behind open sesame and the movable data feast, the rest of us the world wouldn’t know a social network from a search engine. But guess what, we do. I don’t know when you found the time between tweets to do it, but some of you guys have made it possible for the world outside this geodome to connect — you have given the entire globe the power — so why don’t you ask people what they want to do with the content they’ve created before you decide what it is they need from the people who gave them the means for creating that content?
And if you know these answers, then tell the rest of the world. Right now, that’s the data I want. I still don’t know one live human being outside of this industry who cares about the open question. I want to know how you know they care. How you know what they want. And how you connect the empowering technologies created by talented engineers with the mainstream marketplace. I want to know so I can start telling them.
Thank you very much. Now go to bed, for crying out loud.
http://marytrig...2;-or-is-i.html
I get the feeling DataPortability is nothing more than someone not very important jumping on a bandwagaon to get themselves and their own company into the limelight.
all that said that was one of the funniest gangs I have listened to with some classic lines.
The ustream channel was the place to be http://www.ustr...hannel/techaura
@ballzac – you got it right my man. welcome to the circlejerkosphere.
@ballzack – you’re the only one here who’s got it right.
“MY DATA IS MY DATA!!!”
-was repeated ad nauseum during the podcast.
I would certainly agree that anything you type in to the site is certainly your data, but what if the site adds value to your data?
Are your results from Facebook’s myriad quizzes your data? What about your rankings vis-a-vis your friends?
Whilst I’m not saying that this value-added data is DE-FACTO Facebook’s, I also believe that it’s not unquestionably yours.
a mystic would say that nobody’s data is their data, just as nobody’s thoughts are their thoughts, they come from “somewhere”, call it the group mind, ownership is just an ego idea, so is “identity”, one’s personal reality is far beyond any sort of quantifiable data, though the mind doesn’t like to admit this part of reality. thinks it’s the self
Wow, one mention in the WSJ and now I’m seeing people argue about Data Portability issues that never even knew what it was until last week. They want us to build it with capitalism in mind? Some people are lost. Data is the same data that was on our computers. This data is increasingly headed north to the clouds, why the hell would I pay some idiot my hard earned money so he can rent a car and sell me my own data?
What’s great about Data Portability is that it’s remained pretty much a loosely coupled technology. This means that companies can implement what they want where they want. The big guns like Facebook and Google better pay attention to the customer though because there is a possibility that the social mesh will be nothing but all independent URI’s all talking to each other over an open protocols.
If Data Portability continues to mirror the wishes of the consumer in general, it will be most useful. I don’t care what Scoble or Mike Arrington think if that’s not what most customers care about. For the people, by the people. What the big companies don’t understand is that Data Portability represents an opportunity beyond anything their R&D labs could ever create.
I’m not surprised Chris Saad “didn’t take a leadership” position. A real leader, let’s the passionate people argue and listens. As far as I’m concerned Data Portability and the people that spend countless hours of their time trying to make the internet a better place have better things to do with their time than argue with a bunch of people who jump on the boat the minute something gets mentioned in the WSJ.
Data Portability, Chris, the rest of you, don’t forget the problems you set out to solve, and who’s problems they were, the little every day person. The “A” list bloggers hardly represent the voice of the people. (Not that I disagree with any loud people on any issue) Just remember the little guy and you will never fail the netizens.
Oh, and thanks. Without the countless hours of your time, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
XXXXclusive leaked transcript of michael arrington and gillmor gang from mturk. first and the only available place
http://brcmlive...llmor-gang.html
It seems that people are arguing as though the socNet companies are like AT&T: capital infrastructures with physical components. They aren’t. Anyone can build one and run it on the web, and more are emerging daily.
So the issue of data ownership is more like the issues of copyright and trademark, and not about the places where you put your data. We need modifications to the law of data ownership in general. The socNets will just become like publishers.
That should have been: “capital infrastructures with major investments in physical components.” I know the stuff runs on servers, but you don’t even need to own those.
I listened to this podcast, and was kind of ridicule. Including the dude claiming to be a data portability expert, and demanding to be included as such on some upcoming conference. Who cares.
If you don’t want your data to be used, don’t use the service. Regardless of social portals your data is being shared right now w/o your permission; via email or IM or whatnot. That it is done via this new social channel is more of the same.
Yes, my data is my data, and your data is your data, and me having your data doesn’t really give me the right to share your data, even though hell, everyone can, regardless of social portals, again and via email right now, or IM, or whatever…
Yet, it is good discussions like this happen because it creates awareness, but all this was lame seeing all beating their chests, about people changing or not their opinions; who cares really….
ceo
I have just finished listening to the podcast and the question I have for Mike is “who owns the relationship data”? A relationship is a contract between two parties. In the scenario of Mike handing Scoble his business card, a relationship is established with a certain, currently implicit contract. In the debate Mike said he didn’t mind Scoble putting the email address into a 3rd party email system but didn’t want it ending up in Plaxo. These are the terms of the contract for this particular relationship. If Scoble says he wants to actually use the email address in Plaxo then he has two choices: enter into the relationship and accept Mike’s usage clauses or decline the business card.
So, going back to Facebook. If Mike has established a friendship relationship with Scoble does the information about that relationship belong to Mike? If so, how much of the data at the other end of the relationship also belong to Mike. If not, then does Mike need to get Scoble’s permission to extract the relationship information?
“we have reached a nirvana”
yaaay!
We had a good discussion on the issue today at the Second Life DataPortability meetup. The transcript can be found here:
http://wiki.dat...y+May+18th+2008.
I think we mostly agreed on the fact that discussing ownership does not really bring us somewhere but more so licenses for data I put into a system. Steve Greenberg is working on that for the DataPortability Policy Group and he explains it a bit in that discussion (he is Henway Costello).
So once we have agreed on rules to define what other people (be it a service vendor or your contact) can do with your data we can maybe look for a fitting technical solution hopefully based on open standards.
Facebook actually is in a good position as they have good controls in place already (as as Xing, maybe even more granular ones). They “just” need to open it up and also give me the chance to move my data elsewhere if I wish to do so. In the end I should only have given them a revokable license to use the data I enter into the system.