What I like is when I know a real person is talking to me, not because they are paid to talk to me, but because they are really interested in what

Not everything I write, read or click is captured to create a true profile of me or what I like. In fact, there is information I do consume that would be at odds with “what I like”. Ultimately this seems like it will lead to some better targeting (I am not saying there isn't value here to FB, there is) but I can't yet make the leap that they will control the web. Also, just because you read/write/click on something doesn't mean you will necessarily “buy” something because FB “knows” more about you from a semantic based analytical perspective. There are a lot of things I have interest in but I only buy certain things – who has that enormous level of valuable data?…Credit Card Issuers. Now if they strike deals to co-mingle datasets with card issuers, then they will be on to something.

And ironic, maybe. I sought to decribe the conflict more than take
sides, but I'm clearly not pretending to be objective.

For now the open graph has greater potential than any truly open
protocol (in my estimation at least), so I'll stick with it until
something better comes along.

I guess I'm acting more like a pragmatist than a utilitarian in that
sense.

-Andrew

And, for what it's worth, is it a bit ironic that you have the FB 'like' button on the top, thus contributing?

—————-
JOEL:

“Andrew,

“Yes, that all makes sense. Thanks for clarifying it for me. Like you said–
the advantage for users is in the connection. It helps users find and only
receive content that they want and advertising that actually suits them.

“Since facebook is the most used social network it will have a monopoly on
user (or consumer) data. All of this data that they collect and own will be
very valuable to other businesses and advertisers. They control the
protocol and who gets in on this network and data. This goes against the
idea of what many believe the web should be (open content shared with
everyone). I wanted to make sure I understood that correctly before I
continued with my thoughts.

“I understand that this is a huge development in how we as people connect,
interact, share information, do business, advertise, and buy and sell
products. This is just another step along the way that has been evolving
since the web started and up popped e-bay, google, facebook, blogspot, etc.
etc. I do not what to discount how these innovations have changed
interaction between people and business (much for the better in my
opinion). In addition, I do not want to discount how a powerful force like
facebook can use their innovations for evil.

“However, I am arriving at somewhat of a different conclusion than some of
your referenced posts as to what this means for us. First, the large
majority of the internet is still made up of open content outside of
facebook that won't become closed just becuase many people use facebook. I
don't think it will completely change the web from what it is currently (a
HUGE place to interact with shared, mostly fee content–which i think is
good).

“Secondly, facebook is only capitalizing on a consumer desire to have
relevant content organized even better along with a platform to interact
about the content. (I think you may have referenced this in your post about
how facebook found a way to kill google). Essentially they are a social and
entertainment platform that connects people. Most of the data collected on
open graph will be entertainment related (music, sports, movies, etc.) and
thus be very important for those entertainment related businesses–but not
as important for a majority of other business. I still believe the majority
of businesses make their profit from loyal people in their actual
communities that they provide goods and services for through face to face
transactions. They would be indifferent toward most of the data collected
on open graph.

“Since facebook developed their platfrom, I don't think it is necessarily
evil that they control the content. Like I stated earlier, overall the web
is still based on open content, and I don't think facebook will change
that. The information facebook collects will still be a secondary tool used
by advertisers to push a real product.

“I think this is true of our social networks as well For example…When I
log on to facebook, I would probably only care about the “likes” in the news
feed of 5-7 of my closest friends that I actually interact with face to
face. Everything else is just a bunch of noise to me. (I understand that I
perhaps am not a typical user.)

“All this is to say that I believe that our face to face interactions will
still drive business and our relationships–not the web, facebook, or any
other social network–regardless if they control their content or not.
Businesses that provide a needed product to real people in real communities
will still do their business. People that take the time to interact face to
face and experience things together will still be the true “social
network.” That is what truly drives how society operates. I don't think
the open-closed debate or facebook leveraging themselves to make money
through content control will have as much of a bearing on how the web and
society as whole operates.

“Sorry to get so long winded. I know this may deviate somewhat from the
original point and question in the article, but does this make sense?”

———-

My response to Joel:

Joel,

I think that Google's motto, “don't be evil” is such for a reason. It almost seems a bit Spiderman-y: “with great power comes great responsibility…”

I'm really excited about what Facebook is doing for users and for marketers. In fact, all the sites I manage had a Facebook social plugin installed within 24 hours of the f8 announcement about the Open Graph.

I think the reason folks like Searls and Winer get so bent out of shape about closed platforms is that everything they do in life is focused on opening access and reducing organizational control. Searls was one of the writes of the Cluetrain Manifesto [ http://www.cluetrain.com/ ] (you may have known that), and has since gone on to found “Project VRM” [ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/ ] at Harvard—a project designed to turn CRM on it's head (VRM stands for “vendor relationship management;” in this model of business, organizations come to people rather than people going to organizations).

In any case, I wrote this post because I felt that the big blogs like TechCrunch, ReadWriteWeb, and even folks like Winer and Saad were making the issue too much about Facebook and not enough about philosophy.

Every time a closed platform comes out—the iPad, Facebook's Open Graph, you name it—their response will be predictably the same: “It's going to kill society because it's closed. We need a open, interoperable {insert thing here} instead.”

Not that their position is bad, just that it's predictably consistent.

The reason that I think the Facebook issue is so elevated, even though there's tons of content that's available for free outside the graph, is that this gives us the first real glimpse into the Semantic web.

Google is really good at handling syntax. It can figure out which words are on pages, where those words are located within phrases, and determine the relative importance of pages based on what other pages link to them.

All of that syntax information is based on counting. Counting letters in a string, counting spaces between words, counting links to a page.

Computers are great at that.

But it's horrible at semantic understanding because it can't process meaning. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web ]

Tim Burners-Lee (one of the founders of the World Wide Web) has been dreaming of a web that is capable of analysis based on semantic data since 1999 (maybe even earlier). Facebook now has just given us a way to analyze data based on relationships of meaning—on what you like and what your friends and friends of friends like, what you ascribe meaning to. The meta data Facebook uses further describes these relationships because it can report to the graph that the thing you just “liked” is a person, place, movie, animal, etc.

The fact now that the first real glimpse of the Semantic web comes from a closed system flies in the face of everything the Internet was designed to do (in NEA terms).

But regarding face-to-face versus online business—I still see a need for great products, but all of the trends I'm watching show people migrating online more and more, and even changing what we might consider “face-to-face.”

For example, in the past month I've done some feelance web consulting on the weekends for people in Los Angeles and Seattle. We've only “met” through Skype. I was able to provide a real product to them with tangible benefits through an ecosystem that's geography independent.

Just my two cents.

-Andrew

PS — Would you mind if I repost this conversation in the blog comments? Thanks!

The NEA agreement of the internet most certainly stands without
Facebook's Open Graph. You can still search and find content wihtout
using Facebook's protocol, but you can't access any of the semantic
data that Facebook is compiling.

So, for example, if you “like” this post, and so does another of your
Facebook friends, you'll see their picture right under the headline.
Pretty cool, right?

Now say that five of your friends “like” this post, that social
activity can show up in your Facebook feed or on your wall.

Taken one step further, sites like IMDB, with the right application,
can include every new movie you like in the “favorite movies” section
of your profile.

A site like ESPN could use the “like” button to publish stories to
your wall every time there's a significant event that happens with an
athelete you've “liked.”

And any application you use on Facebook can now store your data
indefinately (that's *all* of your profile data).

It's a huge win for connecting people and for providing greater
context for content and advertising (imagine only seeing ads for
products your friends and friends of friends have “liked”).

*BUT* all of this is built on Facebook's Open Graph protocol. Because
Facebook owns the protocol, it means they can change the rules
whenever they feel like it (like they did when they killed “Facebook
connect” and implemented the Open Graph).

It means they can block out whomever they want.

It means that only they have the power to change how the protocol
itself works.

Constrasted that to the Internet: anyone can connect (if one ISP won't
give you access, you can almost always find another), anyone can
publish a web page or content, anyone can make how the internet works
(the protocol, how bits are transferred) better.

Does that make sense?

-Andrew

-Andrew

I want to clarify something first about how facebook open graph works. (I apologize for what may possibly be a dumb question or clarification). I see that one can use open graph to link to movies and games, ect. through the “like” button and of course that connects people and allows facebook to complile data about what everyone “likes” which is of course very valuable information. However, won't a person still be able to use any search engine (like google) to go directly to a movie page or a game page, without having to sign in to facebook? If you search the web itself, outside of being on facebook doesn't the NEA agreement of the internet still stand? Or, will facebook be setting up agreements in which the only way you can get to a particular game or site is by signing in and using their platform and like button? Please forgive my rudimentary understanding. I may not be articulating this question correctly.

Oddly, this same argument has often been used with time travel. The scientists are concerned with the how, this philosophers with the why. The internet is truly the haven of the atheist and I thought that would be a good thing, but it too has its major flaws.