Facebook’s ambition

Is this how the web looks to Facebook?

Ambition.

It’s the one word that kept coming up in conversations I had around the halls today at Facebook’s F8 event. Whenever I heard that word it was clear we were talking about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Compared to last week’s weak moves by Twitter, where its CEO barely even announced anything, yesterday’s moves by Facebook were huge.

OK, I heard another few words:

“Visionary.”

“Scary.”

“Huge.”

“Unbelieveable.”

“Blown away.”

“Zuck has balls.” or “Facebook has balls.”

“Big moves.”

Heck, listen to David Kirkpatrick, who worked for Fortune for more than 20 years and just finished a book, Facebook Effect, about Facebook. I catch up with him here before the press conference, which happened just after Zuckerberg and team made tons of announcements:

Listen to the words he uses: “This is not just another company, it is a transformational phenomenon.”

“It is really great, but it is really scary in some ways too.”

By the way, after I talk with David I talk with quite a few other movers and shakers in the tech press in that video so you can get a sense of how we all reacted to the news. Then, at about 20 minutes into that video you get to see the full press conference (I have the only video of it on the Web that I’ve seen so far).

Before I explain more about what I mean when I say Facebook wants to own your digital fingerprints, there are a few other reactions I want to get in here. The first is with a couple of guys from the National Hockey League. Listen to how excited they are about the new features they turned on yesterday on NHL.com. You can “like” every player there. Some players already have hundreds of likes in just the first few hours.

Then watch how Pandora’s CTO, Tom Conrad, describes Facebook’s moves and how Pandora is now much more social because of these changes. “Mark is right when he says Web experiences want to be social.”

Finally, head over to Facebook’s official site and watch some of the videos if you haven’t seen them yet.

WHY IS THIS SO AMBITIOUS?

These moves are ambitious for a few reasons:

1. It gets Facebook plastered all over the web. Already Facebook likes are on many many sites and I’d expect to see Facebook’s new social features to show up on at least 30% of the web’s most popular sites within a month.
2. It lets us apply our social graph “fingerprint” to sites we visit. You do this by adding social plugins to your site, which is pretty easy to do.
3. It lets us apply our behavior “fingerprint” to sites we visit. Again, by adding social plugins onto your sites.
4. Facebook gets to study everything we touch now and will bring a much more complete stream back to the mother ship. This lets them build new analytics features for publishers, too, as All Facebook’s Nick O’Neill writes, but now Facebook will have the best data on the web for advertisers to study.
5. Facebook gets us to keep our profile data up to date. Marketer Ed Dale nailed why this is such a big deal.
6. Facebook gets to overlay a commerce system, called Credits, on top of all this. Justin Smith of Inside Facebook writes about that.
7. Facebook has opened up to enable all this stuff to flow back and forth and has removed the 24-hour limitation on storing data gained from its API. This is probably the biggest deal for developers, Inside Facebook writes about that, but they’ve also made their API more granular so that sites can ask for, and get, very specific data instead of getting everything stored on a user. We’ll be talking about this for a while, because it actually has good implications for privacy.
8. All this new data will enable Facebook to build new kinds of search experiences, as All Facebook hints at in a post where they say Facebook is trying to build a version fo the semantic web. Search Engine Land goes further in detail about what these changes will mean.
9. It lets Facebook minimize the need for a “public” fan page, like mine. Inside Facebook explains more in detail why this is true. Mostly because they’ll spit all those bits over onto my blog, if I add the code to my blog (which I’m pretty sure I will).
10. Finally a stream of focused bits for the people who are actually visiting your page can be pushed back out to you, as Inside Facebook demonstrates.
11. They made the API much simpler and shipped a powerful graph API so more developers can build apps for Facebook (this has been one of the advantages of Twitter, for instance, because Twitter’s API was simple to figure out). Heck, you can even hit it from a web browser to see what it returns. Here is what it returns for http://graph.facebook.com/scobleizer (if you want to try it yourself, just include your Facebook name instead of mine).

All this Web belongs to me

Is this all a deal with the devil, as RWW asks? Absolutely! Sebastien Provencher has another concern: that Facebook will gather data but not sure the goodies back (like analytics and monetization). GigaOm’s Liz Gannes notes that Facebook now is a single point of failure for the Web. Leo Laporte says he won’t use the new Facebook features on his sites. Dave Winer goes even further and says that the answer to all this must be “no.”

These are legitimate concerns. Let’s explore why:

Let’s key in on #2: your social graph — the people connected to you in various ways — is a fingerprint. My social graph is different than yours. So, when I click “like” on a hockey player on NHL, I’ve applied my fingerprint to that hockey player. Now what if 1,000 other people do that? That site really has a lot of details about the average user that’s visiting: details they never would have had access to before. But that’s not what’s scary. What’s scary is the traffic boost that these sites will get. Why? Because those 1,000 people will drag all their friends over. Actually, no, that’s not scary either.

What we’re really scared about is another very powerful company is forming. One that we don’t yet fully trust. Heck, just a few years ago Facebook erased me from the web for 24 hours. I can’t forget that, even though now I’m good friends with most of the Facebook execs. Let’s say Facebook wanted to kick you off the system, it could, and that could have deep implications for your business, career, etc.

Now go further, we’re all going to be very addicted to Facebook’s new features very quickly. The website that doesn’t have Facebook “likes” on it will seem weird in a few months. In a few years? Almost every site, I predict, will have them, and the other components that you can check out above (and more that will come soon, both from Facebook as well as other developers).

My fears are that Facebook might turn evil and use its position against organizations, the way that Apple locks out organizations from shipping apps (do you have Google Voice app on your iPhone yet? I don’t). Imagine if Facebook wanted to turn off the New York Times, for instance. It could. And that’s a LOT of power to give to one organization, even one that’s earned my trust like Facebook has. This is why I keep hoping Google has a clue (so far it hasn’t).

Tomorrow during the Gillmor Gang I’ll try to talk about the identity fingerprints that Facebook now has under its control. It is a scary world, but one that has huge benefits to all of us.

Today I told someone like I felt like I was at the completion of a major piece of commerce infrastructure that would affect our lives for decades. I likened it to the cross-continental railroad. Remember that? Well it changed the world. It opened the west. Made new careers possible. Let fresh food from California get to Chicago before it spoiled and all that. But it created an organization that had a LOT of power that wasn’t always used well.

Today I told Zuckerberg that he now has the modern-day railroad in his grasp and challenged him to both win our trust and not abuse the major power he’s going to aggregate.

So far I’m hearing all the right things from him and the employees around him. They know that this is a major, ambitious, move and they are going to move carefully and deliberately from here. They better or else we’ll see regulators move into control this business like we’ve never seen in our industry. One CEO, who asked not to be named, told me in the hallways today that Facebook is now a utility that the industry is going to rely on and he noted that utilities usually are heavily regulated to make sure that they don’t abuse the power they have over people and businesses.

The moves Facebook made today ARE that significant. Don’t miss Facebook’s ambition.

Oh, and if you’d like to hear more later today we’ll do a special Gillmor Gang and we’ll have Bret Taylor of Facebook on to fill in more details at noon Pacific Time. Watch building43 live then.

  • http://stephenpickering.com StephenPickering

    Hey Alex!

    I appreciate you reading my long comment. Your point is taken. I don't trust MSFT at all either, which is one reason I made “the switch” 2 years ago, which in some ways proves my point. Their “evilness” lead to the rise of Apple and Google along with the Open Web and Web 2.0. Money flowed into their competitors, Linux as well, due to their “evilness” But then in turn the free market and the resurgence of Apple and rise of Google at least forced them to put out a better product in Windows 7 (From what I've heard, I haven't used it) And forced them to move Office to the Cloud and lower its cost I believe.
    Let's say MSFT Docs and Facebook are successful. At the very least, it will force Google and Apple to up the ante and continue innovating. Also one could say Apple's “Evilness” in the 80's (Greed in pricing) led to the rise of MSFT. MSFT saved us from an Apple dictatorial regime in the 90s and now ironically Apple and Google saved us from a MSFT world in the 2000s

    At the very least, Microsoft is having to compete, which is more than I can say about Comcast and the Telcos which is a highly regulated industry, and I would argue not a true free market. If we had a true free market in telco, I believe we'd all have fiber speeds and lower prices, and lower prices in wireless.

    Having said all that, your point is well taken. I don't trust any one Company, but I believe the free market and competition is the best “regulator”

    What do you think?

  • malbrecht

    A well seasoned analysis of facebook’s “like” web-tsunami.

    One of the oldest wisdoms in value chain marketing is that the owner of the relationship with the customer is the one that determines how much profit share other value contributors get — irrespective of how much value they actually deliver to the end-customer. A phenomenon exploited at large by Telco operators that, owning the (billing) relationship with customers dictate the revenue level of any value-added service supplier, such as content providers for mobile operator services. The same applies to Apple’s iTunes ability to dictate pricing shares (and other idiosyncrasies) on Apps, content, etc.

    facebook wants now to capitalize on their, admittedly huge customer base. They own the relationship with their users and have found a way of building a powerful expansion vehicle by sharing revenues with partners. Not really new as a model, obviously.

    What is new, though, is the dimension (mass) to which this could quickly evolve. If you are right in that very soon not having a “like” button on your web site will be seen as odd, a marketing power would have been created without precedence. Compliance implications? Data protection issues? All in one hand? The impact is vast.

    I hate to say it, but I think it is time for regulation on the use (abuse) of social graph data.

  • http://azitravel.com/blog taige

    i'm not so concerned about privacy but think it could be really useful for the user if they had a search engine.

  • http://blogspot.fluidnewmedia.com Ahad Bokhari

    Yup thanks to hacker news! I'm one of those people who digs deeper to look for the truth Alex..From the outside things always look peachy, but when you peel off the layers it's usually a different story all together…

  • http://danny-fr.blogspot.com/ @Danny_Fr

    What's true for photo and videos is very different for link content.
    You can now tag people on web pages, while this function is a great sharing tool, I am expecting to be tagged in some porn page or completely irrelevant website in the month to come, just like several people tag me in completely irrelevant pictures.

    There are several level of privacy, you are a public persona, your life is public because you make it so. Some other people don't share this point of view, and don't want to make themselves more available than necessary.

    If tomorrow one of your three nude picture is exposed, you have the authority to say “hey, dudes, you shouldn't care”. If a fake of you in bed with a llama shows, you can say “Hey, dudes, it's me… do you really think I could do something like that? Now where was I…”

    If it happens to me, I'll have to explain myself to my boss, girlfriend and family, because I am not famous and nobody would want to do that to me would they?

  • http://twitter.com/matthewcp matthewcp

    Will they be able to do this without forcing users to “connect” every site?

  • digiphile

    You can answer it now: the world's privacy commissioners, like Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who was able to make FB address 3rd party app concerns. Or here in the U.S., David Vladeck of the FTC, who has taken an active interest in online privacy at the series of roundtables. Or any of the 10 signatories of the recent letter to Google regarding Buzz. Or the EU itself, for that matter. The regulatory bodies of today may not have gotten the rule making authority quite yet, like the FTC, nor the specific oversight, like the FCC, but if Facebook does, in fact become an “identity utility” for the Internet it's fair to expect that it will see more oversight. Actions like the one you describe, years ago, when you were kicked out will necessarily have more impact and perhaps earn more scrutiny. Hard to say yet how exactly that will work!

  • http://www.technovia.co.uk ianbetteridge

    “If you want it to be private don't put it on a computer and don't put it on the Internet”

    I don't have control over information that anyone shares *about* me on the Internet. So it's not a question of me avoiding putting stuff online.

    Simple example: Someone takes a photo of me, puts it online, and tags it with my name. I haven't done anything – yet that information is now “out there”.

  • digiphile

    I think it's important to recognize that electronic privacy doesn't just encompass social networks that you voluntarily join, like Facebook, or locational data you voluntarily share, like Foursquare. In the social media bubble, expectations of privacy are very different. Outside of it, in the commercial, industrial and government space, there are huge questions regarding our control of data. Vast amounts of digital commentary is focused on Facebook and yet, in many ways, the data that credit bureaus hold is much more important to the ability of people to get jobs, clearances, cars or homes.

    If a doctor's office receives electronic patient records online, there's no expectation of privacy? What about a psychiatrist who emails with a patient in a sensitive job? How about a domestic abuse victim posting an anonymous comment in a forum? Or an artist compiling statistics on, say, earthquake fatalities amongst children in a protected online spreadsheet? Or law enforcement requesting location data from wireless telcos?

    Privacy online means more than the voluntary updates that people post to location services or social networks. Consider just how difficult it is to “go analog” and off the grid in the U.S. now, leaving advertising, communications and credit histories behind. As the Internet becomes more and more an intrinsic, even fundamental, part of our daily lives, it strikes me that saying “privacy is dead” cedes enormous power to government and commercial concerns alike.

  • http://tvor.blogspot.com SonofGroucho

    If future versions of Facebook have a user interface as clunky and user-unfriendly as their current one, I don’t think I would want them to “transform” the Internet for me!

  • brianahier

    I whole-heartedly agree! Fantastic job Robert and I appreciate your sharing this with us all :-)

  • http://www.paragraf.su/ Визитки срочно

    That makes it pretty clear what brands are thinking of this

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    Oh, yes, this is all about Facebook taking on Google. I left Microsoft Docs out of this on purpose and tried to explain Facebook's moves on their face. They are so big that I didn't need to sensationalize them further by making it about a Google vs. Facebook war, although I was tempted, believe me. :-)

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    And 40,000 people a year die in car wrecks, but that doesn't scare me from driving a car. If I lived in fear all the time I'd have no fun. There are ways to use Foursquare without letting people stalk you, too. I guess you didn't consider that angle. Did you know you can check in on Foursquare without sharing your location?

    • Jason V

      You’re taking a very US-centric perspective here. Privacy matters for a lot of people in a lot of places in the world.

  • http://www.softmachinecubed.com/ reechard

    Robert — I was going to @ you in google reader, and to my surprise your google profile seems to be gone! Which is the oddest thing, since I can see this post shared by you in Google Buzz. I checked it in “incognito” mode to eliminate the “you are blocking me” case. I double-checked by navigating to your google profile right from here. FYI, FWIW, etc.

  • http://jamie.sandford.org/ Jamie Sandford

    I think we're but a few steps away from a Facebook “FacePad”:

    Why Facebook Will Develop a FacePad
    http://jamie.sandford.org/why-facebook-will-dev

  • http://www.softmachinecubed.com/ reechard

    And you've been restored. That was quick, but I still do not understand what happened.

  • http://twitter.com/bobbygarrity Robert Garrity

    Robert, now Facebook will know what we like: movies, tv shows, music, athletes, sports teams, restaurants, places, etc… and the ecosystem will send all that information back to Facebook to have it anointed to our fb profile.

    It adds some nice new possibilities to developers, but what if Facebook decides to make a directory of pages about all those restaurants, movies, sports teams? Facebook will be stealing the conversation away from Yelp, imdb and nhl. Discussions that could have taken place on those sites will now be shifted on to Facebook.

    They created groups, events, photos, etc … maybe restaurants, movies and sports teams are next and it would have been fueled and made possible by the developers trusting Facebook blindly.

  • http://blog.ginsudo.com ginsu

    “Privacy is dead. Get over it.” – that's such a lazy thing to say, I don't believe you can possibly mean it. People who are concerned about privacy are customers expressing a demand, and you can't say that they must conform to your tastes. It's like saying, “Oh, you like chocolate ice cream? Well, I like vanilla, and all my friends like vanilla, so soon the whole world will want only vanilla. So get over it, no chocolate for you!”

  • http://www.thenetworkgarden.com hypermark

    My biggest issue on this one is that Facebook's track record of (dis)respecting the rights of its users has definitely been in the bucket of trusting the fox to guard the hen house.

    First, they launched Beacon without consulting with their users. Then they facilitated the Offerpal types of scams to promulgate, and most recently, they did the Privacy Settings Putsch, which as a parent, I found more than a little troubling (i.e., that a company would decide to flip pictures of my kids from private default to public default).

    As a developer, I think what they are doing is the right solution, holistic and technically reasoned, and that their track record suggests that they will execute.

    As a consumer, I resent companies that tell me, “Privacy is dead. Get over it.” One wonders if that was their mantra before they had 500M users, consumers would have signed on.

    Now, it's a simple case of ambition and execution meets the laws of gravity. Interesting times.

    Mark

    Is Facebook a Brand that You Can Trust?
    http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/12/is-facebook-a-

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    My profile is here: http://www.google.com/profiles/scobleizer it seems to work for me.

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    I say outrageous things to get you to think. Old-school privacy is definitely dead. There is a new-school privacy taking its place. People who think the world hasn't changed just aren't facing reality.

  • http://blog.ginsudo.com ginsu

    I said “lazy” to get you to reply. ;) No one who watches social media could call you lazy and mean it.

    Maybe this is too clever by half, but the very fact that you know the phrase “privacy is dead” will get a rise out of people means that you know there is still a very large audience that desires old-school privacy. To me that means there is a customer demand, but you have to find very creative ways to satisfy that demand considering the realities of the new world order.

  • http://twitter.com/Nesani Mohamad

    For me the privacy is not the biggest problem, my problem is that what happens if i say something or upload a video/picture /etc, that facebook doesn't like it so much …… now FB even CHASES users on the web! is this new age's dictatorship??

  • canucker

    I guess people can always choose to surf wearing “gloves” and avoid leaving their mark. Its when that choice is removed or made difficult that we have to worry. Of course, you can also choose to be dark matter to the FaceBook universe and simply opt-out. If people start to lose trust, opting out will increase and presumably FaceBook will then try to regain trust by changing the rules. Beats me why people put so much information on their FaceBook accounts as it is – makes me think of the phrase “can be used in evidence against you” by employers, the IRS, insurance companies, etc. Everyone wants to know more about you as it has value to them. But they aren't exactly paying you to extract that value….

  • http://atozoftech.com sa
  • http://www.softmachinecubed.com/ reechard

    Your profile outage lasted long enough for me to document it with screen captures… I could hardly believe it myself. I took at least 10-15 minutes poking around before deciding to document it.

    http://www.softmachinecubed.com/tech/2010/4/22/

    • http://jjensen.ca John Jensen

      Just FWIW, I noticed this too about 45 minutes ago but it does indeed appear to be working now.

  • http://www.softmachinecubed.com/ reechard

    Your profile outage lasted long enough for me to document it with screen captures… I could hardly believe it myself. I took at least 10-15 minutes poking around before deciding to document it.

    http://www.softmachinecubed.com/tech/2010/4/22/

  • Christopher Coulter

    A generic global 'like' button, blah — the “fan pages”, are still cold and impersonal broadcasts, fanhood/likehood is hardly much of a reach, and if Facebook thinks it can make much sense out of the gobbledygook raw data, they are fooling themselves and the lazy armchair marketers that don't want to move away from their hollow laptop screens.

    Counterpoints

    1. Plastered all over web? So? No quid pro quo there, and plastered-all-over is also synonymous with spam.
    2. Social graph “fingerprint”? Please fasten seat belts and extinguish all buzzwords. Meaningless.
    3. Like, like, like, like, like, I mean, like, like. Like, totally, like, like, like, way krad kool, like, totallllly tubular. Sea of data makes fingerprints all but useless.
    4. Study? I like Max and Ruby and Rammstein, make sense of that.
    5. Up to date? Have you BEEN on Facebook? It's half a graveyard, and more just Farmvilling-life-away.
    6. Shop Facebook? No more brick and mortar? Same song as ushered in dot.con crash.Yeah, right. Farmville credits de jour best can hope for.
    7. Flow back and forth, data there, data here. So? Relevancy is key, not mere distribution.
    8. New kinds of search experiences? Wheee, now I can finally know the favorite sugar-coated breakfast cereal of people I haven't seen in 20 years.
    9. No public fan page? How's that even a benefit?
    10. Stream of focused bits? Oh dear me. Givemee some of that ole' time bubble religion. Eyeballs Accounting. Focused bits? Have you gone buzzword batty?
    11. API blah blah. Simpler also means more generic insta-apps to forever plague the earth.

    People are complex, ever-changing, variable, self-contradictory and life is absurd, oceans of raw data only makes things worse and catering to vocal-Facebooky minorities, might kill the larger silent customer majorities.

    Social Media is a con game, media isn't social, and people aren't much either. Organizations forge social experiences…jobs, schools, churches, events — not much else, common interests and common experiences work for a time, but drop-off. Some high-school friend that isn't in my present life, might be good for some get-togethers, but anything more sustaining, requires an organization.

  • Christopher Coulter

    It's not ambition, rather it's desperation, affiliation psychology, gone Teenage/Celebrity Fan Site, yet all subject to Nestle-like mob rule tar-pits.

    The ONLY way to make “fanhood” work is to give something back (make it worth MY while, to fan YOU), and companies won't be willing to do that, out of fear of creating entitlement classes, and opening themselves up to single-issue attack activists.

    This is just a page out of the Microsoft fake-game playbook, Beth Goza style, get the bouncy-bunnies and early adopters, all lit up, pretend that you are doing something, have the marketing guys justify their existence with forums/fan sites/junkets and truckloads of meaningless data.

  • Sally Rider

    Game play ut of Microsofts game book? Hmm fanhood needs alot of things to keep it up and out and going. More hte merry. Not as good as http://mcserved.com but close enough

  • mxtlsplx

    “We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.”

  • http://iamjohnwright.com/blog John Wright

    I'm not so sure privacy is dead. No doubt things are becoming much more open on the net (and the world because of the net) than ever before. But I always figured Facebooks massive growth in the past was due to it being closed/private by default. I figured that's what most people wanted and Facebook offered it. Now that Facebook is opening up so much, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a backlash in the form of users leaving to more private networks.

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    If you are right http://pip.io will be huge. I don't think you are right.

  • http://twitter.com/Carmine007 Charles Torre

    I'd argue that monopolizing user experience in a virtual heterogeneous global environment like the Internet is more cause for concern than celebration…

    How much of our online experience needs to be socialized?

    Scobs, Carmine here (Charles is such a geeky fuck – heterogeneous virtual monopoly balls – fuck you, Charles…); You know, I couldn't give a rat's ass what my virtual friends on fuckbook think about my pink underwear and my graying hairy ball sack. Fuck them and their stupid status updates.

    Charles here (sorry about Carmine – he's rude and crude, but does make a valid point somehwere inside all that obscenity and anger…); ,

    Look, the world is not driven by pre-pubescent teens who are addicted to information and the dopamine buzz that comes with public virtual information sharing. Or, is it?

    C

    C

  • http://iamjohnwright.com/blog John Wright

    Well, I'm sure privacy wasn't the only factor in Facebooks growth. Their brand and name is a bit more (average Joe) user friendly than pip.io .

    On another note, it seems Facebooks privacy controls have always been a bit confusing. Early on, I think everyones profile was private by default.

    I know of people (possibly a minority) who avoid much of the social web altogether. Or if they are on a social network, their profile is private. They are only interested in sharing with close friends and family, not the whole world. There may be more of this private social web going on than we're aware of.

    Many people I know still use email as their main way to connect and share on the web (although this number is surely decreasing). Email, forwards, attachments are an archaic way of sharing on the web now, but for many of them, it's still better than what they had when they were a kid (no internet). Email is for the most part private and they know how to do it. Everyone has an email address. They don't see joining a social networking site as necessary or even safe in some cases.

  • markmayhew

    naked pics of Scoble? is the scariest thing i've read. ever.

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    I sure miss you Charles!

  • matthew

    Just to give everyone a heads up Google is going to buy Facebook shortly….

    GoogleBook – 2012

    IMHO

  • http://socialmediaowl.com SocialMediaOWL

    Robert,

    Many thanks for the response – you didn't get much sleep.

    I thought that I would be seeing you on Inside F8 live now but that's not the case?

    Keith Sholl aka SocialMediaOWL

  • http://twitter.com/mattmyrtle Matt Myrtle

    Just give you a heads up Google is going to buy Facebook.

    GoogleBook – 2012 mark it down folks.

  • http://scobleizer.com Scobleizer

    I was the last interview they did yesterday, so probably will be up soon.

  • http://socialmediaowl.com SocialMediaOWL

    Robert,

    Just returned to Inside F8 but it seems to have resumed where I left it a while ago – unfortunately was up late last night following your stream at the press conference – have to head to bed now. Will look for a recording tomorrow.

    Don't really have all the attributes of the OWL – not completely nocturnal.

    Keith Sholl aka SocialMediaOWL

  • drakeminder

    Facebook is confusing.
    I add friends gives warnings that makes no sense
    allows me to continue a little bit later on and it disables my account.

    I have build up my account to over 830 friends in a few months time; it was
    fun, frustrating, and most of the time enjoyable except with the confusing
    interaction I have had with the website.

    …Facebook has policies to stop behavior that other users may find annoying or abusive. Facebook’s security systems determined that you were repeatedly using the same feature or engaging in the same behaviors in a short period of time. Because you continued this behavior after receiving multiple warnings, your account was disabled. Facebook cannot provide any specifics on the rate limits that are enforced.

  • James Pierce

    “So far I’m hearing all the right things from him and the employees around him.”

    Then you’re only hearing what you want to hear. Not everyone is as enthused as you about giving their details to every website they visit without even a revocation option.

    For example, I don’t trust you/yours to post this under my own name.

  • http://plankhead.com Zacqary Adam Green

    Making it impossible to disapprove of or criticize things is a terrible idea.

    Oh, I'm sorry, that was negative feedback. I'll delete my comment now.

  • http://www.HerLoveBucket.com LoveLinguist

    If it is true, after Google buys Facebook and calls it “GoogleBook” , soon the name will be shortened to Gook.

  • http://briangroth.wordpress.com/ BrianGroth

    Scoble: When we spoke at F8 you said you thought it was ambitious, but thanks for clarifying with your 11 points. Great summary!

  • bethkanter

    Robert:
    When I looked at your http://graph.facebook.com/scobleizer – I was surprised to see your home address listed in the API. Doesn't that concern you?

  • toivo

    not impressed. not at all