Facebook Category Archives
личное пространство
20 May 2010 | Facebook, Privacy, Security | 3 Comments
вслед за глобальной кнопкой “Like” Facebook, очевидно, видит страницы своих пользователей, как некое подобие расширенных сетевых идентификационных документов[1]: ведь тут перечислены люди, с которыми вы общаетесь, фильмы, что смотрите, музыка, которую слушаете, рестораны, поездки, встречи и свадьбы — а что точнее опишет вас, чем подобные срезы?
так же ясно, что тогда эти данные о вечеринках и днях рождениях должны быть повсеместно доступны — потому что иначе что же это за паспорт без фотографии?
но тут, как оказалось, и заключается проблема: во-первых, за прошедшие годы Facebook стал публиковать все больше и больше частной информации, во-вторых, происходит это так или иначе вне зависимости от вашего желания:
This spring Facebook took that even further. All the items you list as things you like must become public and linked to public profile pages. If you don’t want them linked and made public, then you don’t get them — though Facebook nicely hangs onto them in its database in order to let advertisers target you.
и, разумеется, каждым сказанным когда-то словом:
This includes your music preferences, employment information, reading preferences, schools, etc. All the things that make up your profile. They all must be public — and linked to public pages for each of those bits of info — or you don’t get them at all. That’s hardly a choice, and the whole system is maddeningly complex.
в самом деле сложные, кстати — еще не успев подумать, как что-то включить или выключить, можно уже рассказать о себе всему миру:
Simultaneously, the company began shipping your profile information off pre-emptively to Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft — so that if you show up there while already logged into Facebook, the sites can “personalize” your experience when you show up. You can try to opt out after the fact, but you’ll need a master’s in Facebook bureaucracy to stop it permanently.
плюс, так же, прямое непонимание:
But when I put something on Facebook my assumption had been that I was sharing it just with the public I created and control there. That public is private. Therein lies the confusion. Making that public public is what disturbs people. It robs them of their sense of control—and their actual control—of what they were sharing and with whom (no matter how many preferences we can set). On top of that, collecting our actions elsewhere on the net—our browsing and our likes—and making that public, too, through Facebook, disturbed people even more. Where does it end?
между тем, все понятно — так, Марк Зукерберг совершенно уверен в происходящем:
I would expect that next year, people will share twice as much information as they share this year, and next year, they will be sharing twice as much as they did the year before
ну да, чем больше, тем лучше:
My encounters with Zuckerberg lead me to believe that he genuinely believes this, he genuinely believes that society will be better off if people make themselves transparent. And given his trajectory, he probably believes that more and more people want to expose themselves. Silicon Valley is filled with people engaged in self-branding, making a name for themselves by being exhibitionists. <...> The problem is that not everyone wants to be along for the ride.
Yet Facebook is pushing us more and more to publish to everyone and when it does, we lose control of our publics. That, I think, is the line it crossed.
и хотя, безусловно, эти совместные существования, эти сетевые деревни, предсказанные еще Маклюэном, несут в себе огромный потенциал:
I will argue that we face choices today about keeping something private or sharing it with our public or with the public at large and that we need to see the benefits of sharing—the benefits of publicness—as we make that calculation. I will argue that if we default to private, we risk losing the value of the connections we can make today. I will argue that we need institutions—companies and governments—to default to public. And I will argue that the more we live in public, the more we share, the more we create collective wisdom and value. I will defend publicness. But I will also defend privacy—that is, control over this decision.
сегодня, тем не менее, мы в шаге от того, чтобы превратить наше общее творчество, тот самый collective wisdom — во всеобщую сежку[2]. именно:
Clearly Facebook has taught us some lessons. We want easier ways to share photos, links and short updates with friends, family, co-workers and even, sometimes, the world.
But that doesn’t mean the company has earned the right to own and define our identities.
—
[1] — все куда проще, то есть, Евгений Владимирович, и куда хуже.
[2] — и не только: “Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook”.
о технике
13 May 2010 | Art, Facebook, Lifeform | No Comments
когда я пишу портрет, то изображаю не человека, а, наоборот, все, что его окружает: мебель, детали интерьера, книги за спиной, ветер, свет в окно, времена года, других людей рядом, то, что он держит в руках, и то, во что он одет, его сигарету или ее отсутствие, его запах и вкус — преломляясь, все эти вещи, свойства и люди падают тенью, штрихами на то место, где сидит натурщик, и тогда происходит чудо: из пустоты начинают проступать черты его лица (вот одна тень пересеклась с другой), взор (это сквозняк пошевелил занавеску), откинутые назад волосы, грубая шершавая ладонь, перпендикулярная осанка. портрет есть не разность, не человек, вычтенный из мира, но сумма — сумма всего, что определяет нас.
именно так завтра сегодня и поступает Facebook.
впрочем, наверняка, это кто-то уже когда-то говорил.
необъятные рынки
6 May 2010 | Apple, Facebook, Internet, Technology | No Comments
то есть, очевидно, что используя, например, свежепредставленный Open Graph (или — при достаточной смелости и амбициозности — некий собственный пока еще не существующий механизм), этот книжный клуб может, во-первых, дать Apple значительное преимущество в противостоянии с Amazon, а во-вторых, вывести обыденную продажу книг на качественно другой уровень (где пока все складывается в пользу, наоборот, бесплатных книг, из запасников проекта “Гуттенберг”).
однако, судя по-всему, Apple сегодня это просто не нужно:
They have great social graph assets in the form of user address books, email stores, and instant messaging friend networks, but they show little sign of understanding how to turn those assets into next generation applications or services. But most strikingly, they don’t really seem to understand some key aspects of the game that is afoot.
If they did, MobileMe would be free to every user, not a $99 add-on. Web 2.0 companies know that systems that get better the more people use them are the key to marketplace dominance in the network era. The social graph is one such system, for which Facebook is currently the market leader. Companies that want to dominate the Internet Operating System either need to make a deal with Facebook to integrate their platforms, or have a compelling strategy for building out their own social graph assets. Unless Apple is planning a deal with Facebook, their current MobileMe strategy seems only to indicate that they don’t understand the stakes.
ну да, у них, конечно, другие задачи:
It’s like a country club. Apple isn’t saying you can’t play golf with your pit-stained t-shirt and denim cutoffs. They’re just saying you can’t do it at their club. Apple wants to run the most profitable country club in the world, with millions of members, but they don’t want everybody.
и все же такой союз с Facebook мог бы существенно изменить мир — а судя по востребованности подобного работающего сервиса — скорее всего, даже к лучшему. более того, где одно, там и другое: музыка и фильмы из iTunes Store, приложения из App Store, и так далее, и тому подобное. настоящие молочные реки — для тех, кто знает, куда они текут.
will be facebooked
28 April 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Privacy | No Comments
еще одна точка зрения:
There is something interesting about Facebook’s announcement of the (not really open) Open Graph that has received less press; the fact that Facebook is a private company. No one knows for sure how much of the company Zuckerberg and others own, but it wouldn’t likely be difficult for him to put together 51% of the company. What that means is that a private individual (or small group of individuals) own virtually everyone’s online identities. The difference between a private company and a public company owning these identities, is that a private one is under no legal obligation to try to make a profit with them. This makes a private company’s actions very difficult to predict/understand. I’m not saying Zuckerberg isn’t a good guy, I’m saying its too much responsibility for one 25 year old.
теория графов
26 April 2010 | Facebook, Internet | 6 Comments
еще немного о том же — во-первых, небольшое введение:
Facebook has recently launched a new version of F8 (their development platform) with Open Graph connectivity. You can now “Like” fanpages (instead of “Become a fan”) and with external sites like Pandora, if you “Like” the website (connect to it) you’ll get updates on music. <...> For example, say I had a button called Like on this blog. You could click on that Facebook Like button and your friends on Facebook will get a newsfeed item saying “WhateverYourNameIs likes LaurelPapworth.com”. But it doesn’t stop there. Now everytime you are on Flickr, or Slideshare, my stuff will come up first. Good for me. But do you really want to be tracked like that?
This next version of Facebook Platform puts people at the center of the web. It lets you shape your experiences online and make them more social. For example, if you like a band on Pandora, that information can become part of the graph so that later if you visit a concert site, the site can tell you when the band you like is coming to your area.
<...>
For example, now if you’re logged into Facebook and go to Pandora for the first time, it can immediately start playing songs from bands you’ve liked across the web [emphasis mine]. And as you’re playing music, it can show you friends who also like the same songs as you, and then you can click to see other music they like.
очевидно, что Зукерберг хочет видеть Facebook, как отправную точку любого интернет-приложения:
Facebook is trying to be more than the identity system for the web. They are trying to be the identity system for everything. There’s no limit because they’ve (correctly) understood that the web can and in many ways does model our reality. Yelp has pages that represent restaurants. IMDB pages rep movies. None of these things had identity until now.
и это даже не то, что в свое время не удалось OpenID (или, вернее, что они не захотели сделать), а куда шире. но в то же время и куда опаснее, ага:
So perhaps there’s a compromise? Let me implement my own Like feature and have it connect up to Facebook through a feed. And let it connect up to Facebook’s competitors just as easily. I’m sure the smart guys at Facebook could figure out how to do this, perhaps they already have? I’m willing to do a little extra work to keep the web independent of any one company.
<...> this is about more than identifying us. This structure leads to identifying places, sites, data, information. We will add a tremendously valuable layer of data atop the world – what we look at, what we like, what our friends like…. That is the wisdom of the crowd. Who owns that wisdom? No one but us. If you add value to it, you can extract that value (that’s what search engines do). But if you own the crowd’s wisdom then isn’t the crowd screwed?
перестройка
23 April 2010 | Facebook, Google, Internet | 1 Comment
добро пожаловать в новый дивный интернет:
Today at Facebook’s F8 conference, Mark Zuckerberg laid out his plan to turn the Web into “instantly social experiences.” The building blocks to this super-social Web are Facebook’s new Open Graph and Social Plugins, which include new “like” buttons everywhere on sites outside Facebook.com, auto-login capabilities for those sites without clicking on Facebook Connect, and even a Facebook social bar which includes several of these plugins plus Facebook chat (goodbye, Meebo).
We’ve reported on all of these new features before, but today Zuckerberg put them into context: “we are building a Web where the default is social.” How is Facebook doing this? First and foremost, Facebook has redesigned its Graph API for developers so that not only can they see the social connections between people, but they can also see and create the connections people have with their interests—things, places, brands, and other sites. Zuckerberg calls it the Open Graph (as opposed to the Social Graph). It is really an Interest Graph.
и дальше уже Брет Тэйлор:
The most interesting thing Taylor said was that Facebook’s stance is that social connections are going to be just as important going forward as hyperlinks have been for the web.
ага:
So that’s Taylor selling Facebook’s Open Graph to thousands of startups out there. And many are likely to bite. There’s no denying that social graphs are the key to a service being sticky, and there is no better social graph than Facebook’s.
Companies will have to choose whether to fight against this, and attempt to launch their own graph, or get in line. “When we connect our graphs together, the web is gonna get a whole lot better,” Zuckerberg promised.