After the dust has settled, the big question is: Now that Google has socialized the web -- what will the web do? Or, in other words, now that the rest of the web has welcomed the "open graph," is the Facebook closed?
There is broad consensus about Google's motivations. Almost every commentator agrees on "why Google turned into a social butterfly" (in the words of Randall Stross, who -- in today's NY Times -- explains it in the un-geekiest fashion). There is disagreement, however, about the implications. Techcrunch's Mike Arrington contended early that Facebook is checkmate (because it is an island). Others like Saul Hansell argue that Facebook won't be affected too much by the de-facto-meta-social network that Google has enabled (because it is an island): "The frenzy about open platforms misses an essential truth: no one will go through an open door if there isn't something worthwhile on the other side."
One thing is clear: Even if some of Facebook's users may prefer to stay in their walled gardens, Google's move to allow them to freely roam with their social graphs will ultimately reduce Facebook's ability to cash in on them. Even the sophisticated SocialAds platform (codename: "Project Beacon") that Facebook is expected to present at ad:tech this Tuesday will not prevent the centrifugal forces of the web from prevailing. For the web (almost) always prevails. See AOL (and disregard Microsoft vs. Netscape). Facebook will still be a viable social network, perhaps even the most popular of all (thanks to its smooth user experience). But it is clear now that it will never become the new operating system, nor, if it had ever aspired to be, the Internet that Google just (re)invented.
In the meantime, the San Jose Mercury News reports that privacy groups are increasingly concerned about the social web: "(…) security experts say the advertising war could (…) open a Pandora's box, unleashing personal data in ways consumers never suspected. The collateral damage could include greater potential for identity theft, tainted reputations and extortion. The potential is 'Orwellian,' said Michael Fertik, founder and chief executive of ReputationDefender, a Menlo Park-based company. 'When you have a lot of traffic that comes from identifiable IP (Internet protocol) addresses that exhibit a lot of trackable behavior, you generate a staggering amount of rather specific information about individual users as well as classes of users. And in many social networks, the greatest part of their value is to identify users by name.'"
Comments