Facebook has invited a group of bloggers and journalists to its offices on Hamilton Street in Palo Alto today to discuss the details of its upcoming profile redesign, which we’re told will launch in a few weeks.
Keep checking in here as I share my notes from the event.
Elliot Schrage has kicked things off by saying today will be more focused on Q&A than the last event, which was about Facebook Chat.
Chamath Palihapitiya, VP of Product Marketing, is discussing the vision behind the profile redesign, and the mini-feed/news feed in particular.
Goals for new design:
For users: Make profiles cleaner and simpler, give users more control over their profiles, and emphasize recent and relevant information
For developers: Create more meaningful engagement with users, offer new integration points in profiles, and provide distribution for engaging applications
Going to give developers a beta period to step into sandbox and play with new design, so they’re ready when profile gets rolled out in coming weeks.
New design takes advantage of tabs; goal to split up different types of information, make it simpler to navigate.
The basics: feed, info, photos, boxes, and custom application tabs.
MySpace may once again start to take action against third party applications that disrupt the user experience (or their revenue streams), it seems. Back before MySpace Platform this was limited to the occasional widget provider that got out of line. But third parties now have a broad arsenal of features to attack users and get additional installations and clicks. Messaging users is among the most effective, and most annoying.
Cofounder Tom Anderson is making a rare blogging appearance on the MySpace Developer blog this evening - outlining changes to their developer guidelines regarding how third party applications can communicate with users.
This is a a problem that Facebook has had to deal with extensively, including early changes to their platform to limit what we called “black hat” activity by application developers. Facebook has continued to refine the rules over time, but has also shown that they are willing to break their own rules when revenue is at stake.
MySpace has added a new section the guidelines called “Application Communications.” Specifically, applications are now restricted
No incentives may be given to a member for sending a message, bulletin, comment, or any other form of communication. This includes “points,” “bucks,” increased standing, or even features within the app.
It must be very clear to a member what they are sending, when they are sending communication. “Share with friends” is not sufficient messaging, the link must state “send comment,” “send bulletin,” and so on.
The “no popups” rule we have had in place since day one applies to messaging windows. This means no more popping up a messaging window the first time someone tries to use an app. No popping up messaging windows without a user clicking on a very clearly marked link.
Applications that are already live have two weeks to comply.
As Microsoft toys with Yahoo over the possibility of a resumed deal to buy only its search business, is it also thinking of throwing Facebook into the mix? That’s the latest rumor making the rounds. Asked about it in Japan, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg danced around the question by stressing his desire for Facebook to remain independent, but declined to comment specifically on whether a sale to Microsoft was in the works. Presumably, though, he wouldn’t be in Japan if any deal was imminent. The only thing that is safe to assume right now is that Microsoft’s corp. dev. guys are talking to everybody else’s corp. dev. guys about any number of combinations or partnerships.
This is not the first time a rumor has surfaced that Microsoft wants to buy Facebook. After Microsoft walked away from Yahoo the first time, there was chatter that Facebook might be an alternative. What is different about this rumor is that it contemplates a combination of Yahoo’s search business with Facebook. Robert Scoble lays out his conspiracy theory about how such a combo would spell the end of the open Web. Scoble points out that stuff on Facebook is not very searchable, but if Microsoft owned both Yahoo’s search engine and Facebook, it could expose all of that social data to Yahoo’s search engine (while keeping it hidden from Google’s). That would give Yahoo’s search engine a leg up on social relevancy and people search, and thus give it a competitive advantage over Google in that area.
There are a few problems with this theory.
1. If opening up Facebook to search really does confer some sort of competitive advantage, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from negotiating a much cheaper technology deal with Facebook to allow its search engine to spider the social network. It doesn’t need to buy Facebook for $15 billion to $20 billion to do that.
2. It doesn’t need to buy Yahoo’ search engine to do that either. Microsoft has its own search engine. If combining search and Facebook really is a game-changer, it would be a (much-needed) game-changer for Microsoft search as well.
3. Making Facebook more searchable in and of itself is not a game-changer. Social data exists in many other places as well (MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, Hi5, Twitter, FreindFeed, Plaxo, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, etc.). If indexing this social data will make search more relevant, it needs to be done across the Web, not just on Facebook. No one deal will solve this search issue.
4. Combining Yahoo’s search engine with Facebook does not solve Facebook’s biggest problem: making money from (mostly display) ads on Facebook. Microsoft is not doing such a great job selling display ads on Facebook already, and the new deal being talked about between it and Yahoo would not include Yahoo’s display advertising business. Arguably, putting together Facebook with Yahoo’s display advertising business would make a stronger combination (assuming that Yahoo has a better shot at figuring out how to monetize social-network ad inventory than Microsoft).
Still, what this discussion highlights is that buying Yahoo’s search business on its own might not do it for Microsoft without combining it with some other move. Microsoft needs to close a deal (any deal) with Yahoo first, though, before it can start moving around other chess pieces. As far as Facebook goes, keep an eye on Zuckerberg. If negotiations with Microsoft get serious, he’ll fly home in a hurry.
How much are your friends worth? That is the question behind the big debate going on around social networks and data portability. In the last ten days, Facebook, Google, and MySpace have all announced ways to let people access their data (including friends lists) from other sites, except that what they are really trying to do is erect new walled gardens by positioning themselves as the primary repository of that personal and social data. This is valuable data and none of the big players want to cede any more of it than is necessary, which is why Facebook banned Google from tapping into its members’ social data.
But here’s a little secret. All of this data is already leaking out in ways that Facebook and other social networks can hardly control. Startups are finding ways around their official APIs to get the data consumers want into their own systems. For instance, Zude, a personalized Webpage service, recently launched a feature called SocialMix that lets people import friends lists, photos, profile information, status updates, comments, and other data from Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, and hi5. (See the screen shot below, which shows my Facebook friends on Zude). “What we are doing is taking the information and normalizing it and making it available in any manner you want,” claims Zude CTO Steve Repetti. He was tired of waiting around for true data portability to arrive, so he figured out a hack to offer it on his own (and it doesn’t involve screen scraping).
Taking a different approach, Minggl has found a way to access your social data through a browser plug-in. And Media6° is placing cookies through the ads themselves on Facebook to collect social data for advertisers. If you click on an ad with one of its cookies, then the same ad will be shown to all of your friends, who supposedly are two to ten times more likely to click on the ad than other people. Media6° also should be able to target Facebook members as they wander across the Web (as long as a cookie has been placed in their browsers and they come across an ad with the Media6° Javascript code embedded in it).
I’ve come across other startups who claim to be able to pull profile and friend data from Facebook. Facebook can go after them and shut them down, but it is rightly more concerned about Google gaining free and unfettered access to that data. Google is the bigger competitor and the bigger threat. But in the meantime, all of these little startups are finding ways to get at the same social data being so ferociously guarded by Facebook. In fact, they already have it, and Facebook is going to have a hell of a time trying to put it back in the barn.
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.
The scuffle today between Facebook and Google has very little to do with user privacy and everything to do with user control. A huge battle is underway between Google, MySpace and Facebook around control of user profiles and, therefore, users themselves. And their three new products, Data Availability, Facebook Connect, and Friend Connect, are all designed to further that goal.
Internet giants know that the days of getting you to spend all of your time inside their walled gardens are over. So the next best thing is to at least maintain as much data about the user as possible, and make sure they identify with your brand while they are out there not being on your site. The most valuable information a user has is his or her identity (that’s why the big guys are so eagerly adopting the issuing side of OpenID so you log in with, say, your Yahoo account on other sites), as well as their friend list (valuable, plus users hate to keep redoing it all over the Internet) and other information.
The companies with the profiles (mostly MySpace and Facebook) know this. And they know that to keep users happy, and to stop them from entering in all that friend data into other sites, they need to make their data at least somewhat portable. Not too portable, mind you. That means they’d lose control. But just portable enough. That’s why they are launching their products, and that’s why they are being justifiably criticized by people like David Recordon, who says this is not real data portability.
Google is a little different. They don’t have a social networking presence in the U.S., so they are trying to get in the middle between the guys with the profiles (like Facebook) and the sites that want the data. Their Friend Connect product does just that, and makes them an important data middle man. That position can later be leveraged intensely. In fact, in many ways Google can become the most important social network without actually having a social network. Facebook, of course, doesn’t want this. And that’s the real reason why they blocked them today (although the rumor is that they two companies are talking tomorrow about some sort of compromise).
So when Robert Scoble wrote this evening that Google is in the wrong, I disagree. I think Facebook’s intentions aren’t to let users get data out of the network until Facebook is absolutely forced to do so, and then only on Facebook’s terms (see Facebook Connect). The fact is, this isn’t Facebook’s data. It’s my data. And if I give Google permission to do stuff with it, I’m damned well within my rights to do so. By blocking Google, Facebook has blocked ME. And that, frankly, kind of frustrates me.
Let me put this another way. How dare Facebook tell ME that I cannot give Google access to this data!
Scoble has been on the wrong side of this issue before, when he tried to scrape his friend’s contact information out of Facebook and export it to Plaxo. In that case, it wasn’t his data and he didn’t have the right to make it portable. It’s MY data, once again, and only I should be allowed to make that decision. He thinks his new position shows that he gets the importance of privacy, but once again he isn’t thinking in terms of who really owns the data and should be allowed to make decisions around it.
Ultimately I hope that I can keep my identity, friend list, photographs, videos and everything else that constitutes the (de)Centralized Me at any service provider that I trust (meaning I trust them to protect that data, but never go against my wishes and try to keep it to themselves if that isn’t what I want), and just tell sites like Facebook and everyone else where to grab it.
So far, none of the services do that or have announced plans to do that. But someone will, eventually, and in the process of freeing my data they will likely make a big boatload of money, too.
More details on Facebook’s banning of Google Friend Connect from the Facebook API earlier today. I spoke with Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly and Google’s Director of Engineering David Glazer about the banning to get a fuller picture of the conflict.
Here’s an example of how Friend Connect (more details) works in practice. A third party site may want to add social elements to their service. They can integrate with Friend connect and allow users to sign in. Those users choose a social network where they keep their profile (Orkut, Hi5, GTalk and, until today, Facebook) and log in via the social network’s API. They then become “members” of the site, using Google’s terminology. If any of their friends from their social network also become members of that site, those friends are shown on the site and you can interact with them. To see it for yourself, click “log in” at the top of this sample site, IngridMichaelson.
Kelly says the issue comes down to the fact that Google Friend Connect users don’t have control over data pulled from Facebook. In particular, Facebook is concerned that they have no relationship to the end site where the data is presented (in the example above, IngridMichaelson). Instead, Google has inserted itself as a middleman in the process.
Also, Kelly says, once permission is granted to share data, the user has no way to revoke that permission from their Facebook account. Facebook has a privacy control panel that lets users set and change privacy setting over time, including the removal of applications. With Google in the middle, Facebook has no way to stop the flow of data to these third parties.
Google’s Glazer counters that they have a very effective method for unlinking to a site that a user has given permission to, so users will be just fine. In the screen shot below, Google gives an option to “Unlink” the specific social network from the site (on right) or change the data that’s shared from the social network (on left). Kelly is correct that you can’t trigger the unsubscribe from Facebook.com, but Glazer says that’s because Facebook’s API has no way of telling Facebook about the third party site the data has been passed off to.
Glazer says that they have been in “constant contact” with Facebook over the Friend Connect product, and are still trying to work with Facebook to get access to the API again. But Facebook has their own competing product to Friend Connect, called Facebook Connect. The longer the ban, made under the banner of protecting user privacy, remains in place, the stronger Facebook’s position will be competitively. My guess is they’re in no hurry to get through this conflict any time soon.
The fact is that Google is taking perfectly adequate steps to protect user privacy with their Friend Connect product, and it is a useful product for users. After talking with both sides, it seems to me that Facebook is relying on a very convenient catch-22 to stay out of Google’s network. They are the ones in control of their own API functionality, and they could add features that fix this problem. Until they do, there’s nothing Google can do to remedy the “problem,” and the walls around the Facebook garden get ever higher.
Facebook is all about openness and data portability, as long as that doesn’t involve openness or portability of data, it seems.
Today they wrote a long 7 paragraph blog post to get a single point across: Facebook has banned Google’s Friend Connect access to the Facebook API:
Now that Google has launched Friend Connect, we’ve had a chance to evaluate the technology. We’ve found that it redistributes user information from Facebook to other developers without users’ knowledge, which doesn’t respect the privacy standards our users have come to expect and is a violation of our Terms of Service. Just as we’ve been forced to do for other applications that redistribute data in a way users might not expect or understand, we’ve had to suspend Friend Connect’s access to Facebook user information until it comes into compliance. We’ve reached out to Google several times about this issue, and hope to work with them to enable users to share their data exactly when and where they choose.
This of course has nothing to do with the fact that Facebook launched their own nearly identically named product called Facebook Connect three days before Google’s Friend Connect.
It’s not clear exactly what features of Friend Connect justified the ban, since it is so similar to what Facebook announced on Friday. Both products allow the export of profile and friend list data to third party websites.
In the last paragraph of the blog post, Facebook says they want to work with everyone: “We think MySpace’s Data Availability, Google Friend Connect, and Facebook Connect can be part of a great movement in the industry to give users a better and safer experience online, while respecting user privacy. We look forward to working with our developer community and everyone else in the industry to help all of our users take their information, and their privacy, with them wherever they go.” If that’s the case, this sure is an interesting start to a healthy working relationship with Google. Next up on the block list: MySpace and their Data Availability malware product, no doubt.
Update: Facebook PR is pointing out Sections 2B(4), 2B(5) and 2A9(vi) of the Developer Terms of Service:
4) You may not store any Facebook Properties in any Data Repository which enables any third party (other than the Applicable Facebook User for such Facebook Properties) to access or share the Facebook Properties without our prior written consent.
5) You may not sell, resell, lease, redistribute, license, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Facebook Properties, or use or store any Facebook Properties for any purpose other than as specifically authorized herein.
You will not use Facebook Platform or any of your Facebook Platform Applications, and your Facebook Platform Application will not be designed…(vi) to request, collect, solicit or otherwise obtain access to usernames, passwords or other authentication credentials from any Facebook Users, or to proxy authentication credentials for any Facebook Users for the purposes of automating logins to the Facebook Site.
Facebook will announce soon on its developer blog that it’s working on a Jabber/XMPP interface for Facebook Chat. The interface will allow users to talk to their Facebook friends using any Jabber-enabled desktop client.
It will also enable Facebook users with such desktop clients to see which of their friends are online, view friends’ profile pictures, and set their status messages. This will all be possible after users authorize their applications to securely connect and communicate with Facebook Chat.
This is a welcome, albeit not terribly surprising, move on Facebook’s part. The company has recently shown a great willingness to open their data up to other applications and web services. And it’s smart for them to stay ahead of the data portability curve, since they’ll be able to maintain more control over just how data flows in and out of their system (it’s bound to happenanyway).
Before Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook, he launched Facemash, a short-lived HotOrNot-like site that almost got him kicked out of Harvard. Now Facemash is back as a Facebook app called ULiken. Written by two developers in New Jersey , Sam Bensalem (22) and Mike Woods (23), ULiken was inspired by Facemash—in particular from parts of Zuckerberg’s diary that came out during the UConnect lawsuit that describes how he came up with the idea of Facemash. Excerpt (full journal entry embedded below):
9:48pm.I’m a little intoxicated, not gonna lie. So what if it’s not even 10pm and it’s a Tuesday night? What? The Kirkland facebook is open on my computer desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive. It’s not such a great idea and probably not even funny, but Billy comes up with the idea of comparing two people from the facebook, and only sometimes putting a farm animal in there. Good call Mr. Olson! I think he’s onto something.
11:09pm. Yea, it’s on. I’m not exactly sure how the farm animals are going to fit into this whole thing (you can’t really ever be sure with farm animals…), but I like the idea of comparing two people together. It gives the whole thing a very Turing feel, since people’s ratings of the pictures will be more implicit than, say, choosing a number to represent each person’s hotness like they do on hotornot.com. The other thing we’re going to need is a lot of pictures. Unfortunately, Harvard doesn’t keep a public centralized facebook so I’m going to have to get all the images from the individual houses that people are in. And that means no freshman pictures…drats.
Uliken let’s you compare people, celebrities, cars, colleges, sports teams, pets, politcal candidates, Websites, or YouTube videos and vote for which one you like best. It also works a standalone site, but if you log in through Facebook you can put your friends’ pictures up for a challenge and any faceoffs you submit are sent to you and your friends’ feeds.
The 
More details on Facebook’s 
