nav search
Data Center Software Security DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes

back to article
Social Schmidt eyes up Facebook integration

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Up

Mark Zuckerberg won't like that

I thought Buzz was okay. it did a decent job of pulling in stuff from other places. unfortunately, it only worked really well with Google's other apps. and there was a bit of a privacy outcry.

the new version of basically makes it more like Buzz.

Google really needs Facebook's data, as that's where most people are. Facebook will obviously want to keep it for itself and its advertisers though.

Silver badge
Big Brother

"Failing that, there are other ways to get that information."

Before I thought Google thought up new services then built applications for them which get the data they need in order to work. Now it looks like they think of every way to get every piece of information they can think of, then if they manage to think up a service which uses it later on then so much the better.



Google opted users into a service that they hadn't signed up for and then shared their personal information with everyone that they'd ever had exchanged an email with, or had you forgotten? I don't want that creepy fucker Schmidt anywhere NEAR my (or any other innocent party's) data. Their cavalier approach to privacy (basically, you shouldn't have any - remember, according to Schmidt, if you don't want other people to see something that you do online then you shouldn't be doing it, whatever it is) means that they cannot ever, EVER be trusted. I certainly do NOT want them being given, or from Schmidt's quote just going ahead and taking, free rein over Facebook data.


Elementary My Dear Watson

It shouldn't be too hard to get the data, the question is how close will it come to "doing evil"?

Option 1:

Google has a "opt in to share your facebook data" where you essentially log in to facebook through a Google portal and it imports all your data. Kind of like the feed services available for messenger services like Trillian.

Option 2:

Google uses its index to create a compendium of facebook information, whatever happens to be set to non-private.

Option 3:

When you have Google and facebook open at the same time, Google snags your data and indexes it. EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.


Evil is what Evil does

"The best thing that would happen is for Facebook to open up its data," the Wall Street Journal quoted Schmidt as saying. "Failing that, there are other ways to get that information".

Google are way too big for their boots and their arrogance is becoming more open by the day, but then I don't really care - Google and Facebook both suck anyway. I would not trust either of them with my data hence I make no use of their services - I'm not going to volunteer to be Google Fcuked, but you lot help yourselves!

Google boys and girls, downvote away (but only after taking your blinkers off please) ;o)


Google is evil, but so is Facebook

the question is... which is the lesser of two evils.

Google and Facebook don't care about users... they care about eyeballs and data and being able to mine and monetize both. Their value to advertisers (after all, what other revenue streams do either of those companies really have) is being able to get the best return on any campaign. Google do that by profiling the hell out of every user (you have to assume they cross match data from your gmail, calendar, comments on youTube, sites you search for etc). Facebook do it by mining every item of content you share with them, every connection you make and every game you play (Credits are a great way to track your behavior and value - but them and they can a credit card impression on you as well)

Both put personal privacy and control very low on the list... actually something I consider important in a social setting.

Unlike real life Facebook doesn't let you maintain independant circles of friends. Unlike real life Google doesn't just ask "watcha doin'?" it goes through your garbage to make sure, Not sure we should "friend" either of them!

Anonymous Coward

Lesser evil?

@nichomach : If there is one company that has less respect for privacy than Google, its Facebook.

Big Brother

I agree - I want my Facebook metadata!

It has been a long term source of irritation to me that Facebook make it so hard to get to my data - love or loathe Google but they make it easy to walk away - you can import and export in and out of their mail, calendar etc to your heart's content. Facebook on the other hand have shut down every bit of software that tries to let me use my FB-based contact information for my own purposes - why can't I export a list of friends' birthdays, sync up my Facebook with Outlook or my phone (without using their mobile app)? I'd happily support Google using underhand tactics to export Facebook data if Mark Zuckerberg is going to continue to prevent me from doing so myself.

Gold badge


Good argument. If we disagree we're automatically blinkered. Or perhaps you might entertain the idea of conducting a debate where every point doesn't have to be filtered through your value-system, thus automatically meaning your point-of-view wins every time?

The quality of Google's services and products, and it treats the data it holds, are two separate things. Hard to argue Google's search algorithms suck or that their online document capabilities and web-mail aren't amongst the front runners. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't choose to eschew their products over data privacy concerns, which I agree are entirely valid worries.


JDX: In Reply

"If we disagree we're automatically blinkered."

Oops. I didn't really mean it to come across like that. My comment about the blinkers relates to attitudes that I encounter daily (and I am sure you do to). Primarily that many - shall we say, unquestioning service consumers - find some random service useful and therefore assume that said service must be good and that the service provider is honourable (or they simply don't think anything beyond 'Hey, great service. Does just what I need'). Also, there are of course, those 'in the know' that simply fail to acknowledge any any 'shortcomings' in their preferred service provider. It is in reference to these groups that I made the blinkers remark.

"...thus automatically meaning your point-of-view wins every time".

Hmmm, I am not that clever. I see no problem with being proved wrong. In fact such events (as rare as they are <<< humour) are useful. That's how knowledge is often gained - by being proved wrong.

I will agree that the quailty of a service and the way that data is handled are 2 different issues. However, for me, they are - in many cases - strongly intertwined. To me, no matter how fantastic and innovative a service may be, if I cannot trust the service provider then the service itself is next to wothless/useless.

Finally, I agree, Google have created some clever 'stuff' over the years. But then there's been some pretty interesting stuff run through Microsoft Labs over the years. And don't start me on webmail!.. Personally, having used the Interned since the mid 90's, I have never found a compelling reason to use any webmail service. But than, that's just me.

There was one error in my original post... When I said Goole are becoming more arrogant by the day, what I should really have said is that *Schmidt* is becoming more arrogant by the day. This man lauds openness and freedom, just so long as he can drive all traffic through his network, monitor your every action, read your mail, ad infinitum. and then monetise. This is the man who believes that you and I should have no fundemental right to online privacy. This is a man losing touch with reality.

PS. Reg: Where's the Schmidt is a penis icon?


Fourth option.

Option 4:

Googlebot sends out 500m friend requests to every facebook user.

This topic is closed for new posts.

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing