
Gmail: Trap my contacts now (warning when exporting contacts to Facebook) - bjonathan
http://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html
======
ck2
I approve a warning 1000% - it's not like they are stopping you from
exporting.

This will slow down my AOL-using friends who gave away all their contact info
to Facebook and now I get pelted with spam from Facebook using my name and
list of friends (and I don't even have a Facebook account).

Google has never spammed me or share my name and location, Facebook does it
all the time, pick who's more evil.

~~~
kmavm
> This will slow down my AOL-using friends who gave away all their contact
> info to Facebook and now I get pelted with spam ...

Right; there are practical usability problems with allowing willy-nilly access
to your contact list. Some of your contacts have now given your email address
to a company with which you never wanted to have a relationship.

Which is precisely Facebook's reasoning for not providing an API to download
your friends' email addresses. Thanks for providing a concrete reminder of the
legitimacy of this choice.

~~~
ewjordan
_Right; there are practical usability problems with allowing willy-nilly
access to your contact list. Some of your contacts have now given your email
address to a company with which you never wanted to have a relationship._

This is a red herring. Facebook lets _me_ choose whether my friends can give
away literally anything else that's part of my Facebook presence to third
party apps. In fact, there's a strong recommendation that I allow as much
access to apps as possible, in the name of a "more social" experience. They
let apps that I've never used spam me daily, I don't really get the sense that
they care whether they force me into relationships with companies I have no
interest in, as long as it happens _within_ Facebook.

Why should _I_ not get to decide whether to expose my e-mail address? If I
want to, I'm allowed to set my e-mail address to "Everyone" visibility in my
profile, literally the only thing I'm not allowed to do is expose it via the
API.

That's a very deliberate choice, and maybe I'm a cynic, but it strikes me as
mighty telling that the lack of API access to the e-mail part of the social
graph is just about the only barrier in the way of Google being able to
reconstitute the entire Gmail intersection of Facebook's social graph
(Facebook UIDs don't suffice, because Google can't match these to e-mail
addresses without the users explicitly doing so for them).

~~~
falcolas
This makes the assumption you already have a relationship (an account) with
Facebook. If you do not have an account with Facebook, you do not have this
control. kmavm's post indicates that they do not have, nor do they want to
have, such an account.

However, this wish has no effect on Facebook, they will continue to send him
invites on the behalf of his friends, who uploaded his email address for him.

------
portman
Le sigh.

I think Google has lost sight of something very simple in this fracas:

With Google Contacts, _the user directly manages his contacts' email
addresses_.

With Facebook, _the user delegates management of email address to his
contacts_.

These are not the same thing. The Google contacts team seems to think that
Facebook is an address book _just like them_. They are not. And to me, that
failure to understand the differences is the root source of all this
tomfoolery.

\--

Edit after some very welcome discussion downstream:

On GMail, my contacts' email addresses are MY data.

On Facebook, my contacts' email addresses are NOT my data. The FACT that I am
_connected_ to my contacts is my data, but any information about those
contacts does not belong to me.

This is why Facebook is not an address book, and pretending it as an address
book where "your data gets stuck" is bound to lead to frustration for
everyone.

~~~
armandososa
And juste because I _delegated management of contacts_ to Facebook, are they
excused for not letting me get my data out whenever I want to switch _contact
management_ services -- for example -- to diaspora?

~~~
portman
Again, this hinges on the meaning "my data".

From your statement, I am guessing you believe that the email addresses of
your contacts is your data.

So here's the thought experiment:

Amy uses GMail and has been corresponding with Bill, who works at Acme. Bill's
email address, bill@acme.com, is in Amy's GMail address book. "bill@acme.com"
is now a piece of data that is, unquestionably, "owned" by Amy.

Amy joins Facebook, uses the GMail importer to detect if any of her GMail
contacts are also on Facebook, and sees that Bill is on Facebook. She asks to
be Bill's friend, and he accepts.

Several months later, Bill gets a new job. He now works for The Nonprofit
Foundation, and his new email address is bill@nonprofit.org. Bill logs into
his Facebook account and updates his email address.

Because Amy uses Facebook and is friends with Bill, she can see his new email
address.

Is the piece of data "bill@nonprofit.org" now "owned" by Amy?

\--

Personally, I think it's a complex question. I don't automatically ascribe
ownership of "bill@nonprofit.org" to Amy, and it's hard for me to say that she
has a right to export that email address out of Facebook. Others may disagree.
But I would hope we ALL can agree that the above scenario is not black and
white, and that we can have a reasoned discussion about data ownership.

~~~
alttab
If Bill puts his new e-mail address on Facebook - he has effectively chosen to
give it away. It is now information that all of his friends own.

Choose your friends carefully, but choose the data you put on Facebook with
even more discretion.

~~~
gammarator
You can make email addresses private on Facebook, so that none of your friends
can see them. However, people who _already have_ your email address can use it
to find you.

Facebook and Google are using those email addresses for very different
purposes: Facebook uses them to identify the profiles of your contacts (the
user id is the lasting identity) whereas for Google the email address itself
is the relevant identity.

------
RoyceFullerton
"I recognize that once it’s been imported to another service, that service may
not allow me to export it back out."

I could see how this could scare the average user into thinking their contacts
are moved from Google to facebook and stuck there, thus loosing their ability
to use them within Google's products.

Do you think this is the intention?

~~~
jerryr
The wording is definitely questionable. The savvy user will understand that if
contacts are imported into Facebook and maintained there, changes can't be
exported or synched back to Google--a valid concern. But the current warning
copy doesn't quite capture that and seems to imply, as you've mentioned, that
your data is moved.

Google is so engineering-oriented, I can't tell if this was an honest, poor
choice of wording or intentionally vague for the purpose of inducing fear. I'm
not against the warning if it's in the spirit of educating users about how to
keep their data "free", but if this is indeed vendetta as others here are
suggesting...well, that's Google's prerogative, but this method would seem a
bit unprofessional. If they want to attack Facebook, I'd have more respect if
they were explicit about it in this warning.

------
nkassis
I'm just waiting for the backroom deal between the two that will allow two way
sharing between only them.

~~~
jrockway
But Google lets you export your data. So if Facebook exports to Google, then
your data can go anywhere, and we've won!

~~~
patio11
It appears that Google only allows you to export your data as long as the
metrics show that no significant number of people actually do so.

~~~
davorak
I would also like to see any evidence you have for this claim.

------
corin_
It's so nice of these two companies to be spending their time and money
creating this great entertainment for all of us

~~~
pama
Maybe this can inspire some better movies?

~~~
jmeyers
Maybe this can inspire the replacement for Face book.

------
kmavm
Here's what _Google_ had to say about social networks and email exporting less
than one year ago:

"Mass exportation of email is not standard on most social networks — when a
user friends someone they don’t then expect that person to be easily able to
send that contact information to a third party along with hundreds of other
addresses with just one click."

The occasion was Google disabling exporting of contacts from Orkut to
Facebook. I happen to think that both Google then, and Facebook now, are
perfectly correct. However, I am curious how those who see Google as clearly
in the right, and Facebook as clearly in the wrong, would reconcile Google's
statement and actions of a year ago with its statements and actions of the
last several days.

Edit: citation [http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-
to-...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-to-facebook-
by-making-friend-export-tool-nearly-useless/)

------
ukdm
Is this a new warning page that has been added following Facebook's actions,
or one that has been around a while?

~~~
spdy
This gets better and better. Time to grab some popcorn.

And i really like this move from google.

~~~
tomjen3
Actually this is boring - where are the HD explosions? The glib remarks by the
heros? The hot babe they are trying to save?

Even Michael Bay was better than this.

~~~
9ec4c12949a4f3
Are you kidding me? Clearly you don't have the kickass bookmarklett installed.

<http://erkie.github.com/>

------
scrrr
Interesting how the tide seems to turn. My Conspiracy theory:

I think Facebook might have gone to far with Facebook Deals. Now Groupon, its
friends and other bystanders start to react less kindly to Facebook's business
model: Copying ideas from other websites with nothing in return. Oh, well.

------
atourino
It seems to me that their wording pushes their anti Facebook data locking
agenda, intimidating novice users. To me, this goes against their "don't be
evil" company motto.

~~~
maggit
To me it embodies their "don't be evil" company motto. I think Facebook is
being evil here, and Google is fighting the good cause.

However, I can see your angle as well. It seems that the world is not black
and white after all :(

~~~
atourino
That Facebook is evil or not is irrelevant, I think. (I happen to think that
their interests and the privacy interests of their users are not aligned at
all). Google is fighting the good cause, ok, I agree. But the method they used
in this instance is not the best. They could've simply said: "Hey look man.
Facebook wants us to give them your contact data. These are the possible
consequences: 1., 2., 3. Are you sure?" Their current wording implies (to me)
that a user's data is all going to be imported and kept inside of FB and
nowhere else (which is a key point), which is not true as Google holds the
user's data as well. There will be divergence afterwards as the user begins to
use Google and FB in different ways. But yeah, I do see that FB is not an easy
place to get your data out of, but Google is using users' data as a pressure
point to force FB's hand. What would be interesting to find out is if they are
defending privacy because it's a noble thing to do, or if they are just
defending privacy because it happens to benefit them in some other way.

 _edit: added "and nowhere else (which is a key point)"_

------
joakin
Fortunately this gives more info to average users about their data and what's
happening with it

Maybe they will care some day ...

------
phjohnst
There is a point that hasn't yet been mentioned here about the fundamental
difference between an address book, and Facebook.

Facebook is _okay_ to be a dead-end for contacts' emails, since the email
upload is used once to find others on the service. After that, if you need to
contact someone else on Facebook, you can do so with a wall post or an inbox
message. The email address is irrelevant.

With an address book, you _need_ it to be portable, since the medium is
accessible from many different locations and services.

The fact is that you dont _need_ to get your friends' contact details out of
Facebook. You sign up for Facebook to make Friends on Facebook and communicate
over Facebook. Not to communicate over email, etc. (And certainly not over a
rival network.) When you add someone to your address book, you do so to
communicate with them over email, or phone, or whatever, which are inherently
completely open and interconnected systems. [Surely there is a debate to be
had here about the ubiquity of Facebook as a platform and that it should be
open - could you imagine Facebook Clients? But I dont believe that's a debate
about exporting existing contact info.]

To that end, Google warning users about the terminal nature of their exported
data is unnecessary and only confuses the process of finding friends for users
(who, by the way, aren't thinking about data portability, or building up an
address book/contacts list on Facebook, they're thinking about making Friends
on Facebook, to communicate over Facebook)

TL;DR: This whole mess doesn't matter, and Google is only making things
complicated for users.

~~~
Tyr42
>The email address is irrelevant. I disagree. My usage pattern is to use
facebook to find a person, then get their email and contact them through
email, since I check my email more frequently than I do my facebook. (which is
almost never, since I have it send me anything important by email.)

~~~
phjohnst
Sure. But then Facebook doesnt really have a reason to care about you, as a
non-user of their service, and keeping data locked in is their best way of
keeping you coming back.

------
chrischen
Google should also point out that if Facebook lets you export your friends'
emails then your friends can do the same to your email. And that if that
happens one bad or compromised friend can give yours and everyone else's
emails to spammers.

Same thing can happen with Google Contacts, but the difference is that on
Contacts you give out your email. On Facebook you signup with an email and
then you "friend" someone.

------
janulrich
It's great how they used check boxes to make the submit button appear. It
makes it more likely that people will actually read the warning.

------
trevelyan
Google is being silly. First because they're breaking the usability of THEIR
own site out of an invented vendetta against a company that is just using the
feature they created and made available. If they don't believe people should
be able to export data from Gmail they should stop offering it generally and
compete against other email providers with a more closed platform, not whine
about reciprocity from sites that are not in their business.

Second because they are in the wrong. The last thing in the world I want is my
friends on Facebook to be able to give _MY_ email address to random third-
parties in return for free virtual pets or whatever Zynga is giving away this
week. Google's moralism would mean much more spam and a far worse experience
with Facebook. My being a "friend" with someone does not imply permission to
let them give my contact information to third parties. Who is Google to say
otherwise?

~~~
joakin
Don't get it wrong, facebook it's not protecting you against anything, they
are just monopolizing your relationships so that you won't move on with ease
to other services.

~~~
trevelyan
What does Facebook's motives have to do with anything? The question under
discussion is whether a random stranger who can convince one of my friends to
sign up for a virtual pet should suddenly be able to spam me.

Facebook has good reasons not to open their social graph -- and Google's
lecturing them about noblesse oblige on this front is silly. Google should
make decisions about its data portability policy based on its own needs. If
they don't like this kind of access close the API. Keeping it open but shrill
and insensible like this is amateur.

~~~
turtle4
While I understand your point - businesses should act in ways that benefit
themselves. I think that is simply a recipe for a business to succeed, but it
is a short-sighted one. I think the guideline which Google is putting out is
better for the system as a whole, our economy, and the end user. And that
seems to be - businesses should act in ways that benefit themselves and their
users. The fact that what Google is really saying do what is good for your
end-users (and us) is irrelevant in terms of my support of their stance.

None of the existing companies have to let you leave freely or support the
movement of your data, but to a large extent they have been willing to and it
has benefitted the end users, the economy, and the web, in the form of new
start-ups, new mash-ups, and interesting ways to view and share the data
you've put into other systems. If one company wants to benefit from that
sharing, but not return the favor, I think consumers ought to call them on it.
The unfortunate fact that most users don't understand the effect means that
other companies are going to have to make them aware, and Google is taking
that step.

I hope they succeed, but it isn't because I think Google needs the graph
access: it is because in the end it will benefit the end user in general and
us (hn/new startups) to do so.

------
paraschopra
"Select one or more options. Cancel and go back"

I liked this. So Godfatheresque!

~~~
reledi
The other options are the check boxes. New buttons will appear when checked.

~~~
netaddict
The check boxes aren't even visible in my chrome. <http://imgur.com/qMpND>

I don't know if this is a bug.

------
kwamenum86
I am not sure if the back and forth between Google and Facebook is intriguing
or just childish at this point.

Neither is doing this for the users. They are doing it to help their services
grow and ultimately to help their bottom line grow. Believing anything else
would be naive at this point.

------
jasonkester
As luck would have it, I picked today to set up a Facebook profile for me
girlfriend. I'm now really angry with Google.

It used to be a 30 second task to sift through your address book and check off
people to send friend requests to. Now, thanks to Google behaving like
children, I need to figure out how to export her contacts as a text file so
that I can upload it to Facebook.

Google, please stop.

You are pissing off your customers.

Edit: subsititure Users for Customers in the previous sentence if it helps you
to parse it. The end result is still the same: The people who use Google's
service are being punished by Google for the actions of a 3rd party.

~~~
gazrogers
Customers? How much money have you paid Google for services this year?

~~~
cookiecaper
This argument is such an annoying fallacy. People who use Google's services
are Google's "customers" in the same way people who watch television are the
network's "customers". You may not be the direct source of income, but if they
lose all the "non-customers" that are using their services, they're going to
lose all of their advertisers, which is their direct source of income. The
audience is a crucial component in a business model that depends on
advertisement.

Even if it wasn't, Google opens itself to criticism and review _whether their
service is free or not_. We definitely shouldn't temper our ideas or give
Google a pass because "it's free"; that might excuse some advanced features,
but it definitely doesn't extend into basics like contact exporting. That's a
fundamental, and something that many have blasted Facebook, also ostensibly a
"free" service, for not supporting well.

Google is making money off of Gmail. If they weren't making money off of
Gmail, they would have discontinued the service a long time ago. Even if the
nominal costs exceed the direct profits gained from Google Apps licenses and
the display of AdWords, etc., which I tend to doubt, the indirect benefits are
obviously valuable.

Should we all feel a great gratitude to the for-profit corporation Google for
pursuing their best interest? Certainly we all appreciate the free services,
but Google is no charity and expecting an altruistic, anything-goes attitude
to their products is silly. They are a serious company making serious money
and competing in a serious space, there's no need to make up excuses for them,
especially naive ones like, "Well it's free anyway so you shouldn't expect
anything out of it".

~~~
seunosewa
Hmmm, no. They are a valuable audience, but they are not customers. A customer
is someone who pays you for a service. That is the definition.

Why do TV networks continue interrupt their "customers" with ads even though
their "customers" don't want ads? That's because their "customers" are not
their customers. Their customers are the people paying for those ads and they
get to interrupt the "customers" with ads.

It's very important to recognize distinction the between users (aka
"customers") and customers if you want your company to survive. "Customers"
are the product you sell.

------
illumin8
The warning says: "Here’s the not-so-fine print. You have been directed to
this page from a site that doesn’t allow you to re-export your data to other
services, essentially locking up your contact data about your friends."

I think this is misleading - Doesn't Facebook allow you to download all of
your data, just like Google? As much as I dislike Facebook's privacy policies,
the mudslinging seems a little thick from both sides.

Facebook and Google - two of the biggest privacy violating companies on the
planet. May you live in interesting times, indeed.

~~~
nkassis
Facebook to my knowledge does not let you export your friends email addresses
in a way that they could be synced with your email service. I think that if
they did, it would be beneficial to everyone. Their claim that email addresses
are private is bogus. They could add buttons to the privacy settings that
would allow a user to block their email from being access by friends. There is
no valid, as in non anti competitive, reason to hold on to names and email of
your Facebook friends.

I'm just waiting for Facebook to release a real email service ala gmail in the
near future to escalate this battle.

~~~
NolF
There already is an option not to show your email to friends. Just set the
email field to 'Only Me'.

~~~
roll
It does not apply to export, only allows or forbids display your email to your
"friend"

------
pama
I just used this link and saved my contacts, just in case this story leads to
more dramatic actions. I also tested the register complaint button and, sure
enough, my complaint was duly registered (though nobody explained what this
means). Interestingly enough, I could have done both in one step, by checking
both boxes and getting a long button reading: "download my contact information
and register complaint".

------
oemera
This is a really clever move from Google and I think many people will read
this and stop giving there data to Facebook. I have a dump feeling about
giving _all_ of my data to Facebook cause they have sure enough. Otherwise:
it's free and they are making money with your data right?

------
itsnotvalid
Apparently, it's just for Facebook only.

[https://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.htm...](https://www.google.com/mail/help/contacts_export_confirm.html)

By the link of this, one can see that only exporting to Facebook would render
this confirmation message.

------
eiji
Facebook could allow users to "Opt-in" an email export. If I'm not "Opt-in",
only my name would be exported by me and my friends.

We all know that Opt-in is like "does not exist", but they could at least say
they are open.

edit: They could even sell it as a privacy feature ...

~~~
NolF
Facebook already offers your contact information to Microsoft and Yahoo.
However, I think friends who have emails set as "only me" or equivalent do not
export. I tried the feature today and 10% of my contacts did not export to
yahoo :/

------
zoowar
Ironically, control of personal data ends once the data has been shared, by
you or any of your friends. Terms of Service often enable a company to collect
and share your data as they see fit.

------
sdrinf
Are there any publicly traded betting pool for this? I've got 10 bucks saying
FB will open up their data silos (at least for Google) within the next 12
months :)

------
kyledreger
I want a page to see the total number of "complaints" Google has collected so
far. Just curious as to how many people actually picked that option.

------
sssparkkk
Maybe google is trying to get facebook to open up now, so it'll be in time for
everyone to be able to use it to migrate to Google Me.

------
dsplittgerber
It allegedly registered my complaint without me being logged-in, so whatever
they do, it's for show only?

This reeks of a cheap shot.

~~~
stuartloxton
Just because your not signed in doesn't mean it can't register a complaint -
by not tracking username or personal details with the complaint the point of
being signed in is reduced to nothing. They can't even make sure you do it
twice without tracking your user ID (which they won't do because they could
then get username or password).

Therefore being able to register a complaint not signed in seems odd but fine.

~~~
dsplittgerber
That's the whole point I was making. When it doesn't register username or any
kind of identifiable information, it just counts 'votes', which doesn't amount
to anything, as in the end it's just an arbitrary number open to
manipulations.

What do they want to achieve by having the user click a button just to feel
good?

~~~
floatingatoll
I think it would be short-sighted of Google to simply count votes without
recording some sort of "authenticated" bit for later use.

Counting 'votes' provides useful data for Google internal decision-making.

Counting 'authenticated votes' provides useful data for Google to publish.

Lacking any information from Google, it is unclear whether this is just a
"feel good" button or if it's an actual authenticated vote-counting system.

------
luckyland
But does it work with Orkut?

------
ajaimk
Alternate heading: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

------
gizmomagico
This is such bullshit.

A service that won't let me "get my contact information out"? Nice way to
frame this in terms of "openness" too, apparently riding "open" for all it's
worth with Android is not enough.

Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google? No? Isn't
Google "open" enough to let me do it?

 _We think this is an important thing for you to know before you import your
data there._

Did you also think it was super duper important with a cherry and smarmy
bullshit on top to let me know before you gave Facebook my GMail contacts
behind the scenes when I was registering there earlier this year?

No, and I was disgusted when Facebook started suggesting them for "friends"
right away.

~~~
moultano
> _Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google?_

Mostly yes. <http://www.dataliberation.org/>

~~~
gizmomagico
And Google won't be keeping a copy of anything you export or "move" out,
right?

I'm not terribly interested in a chance to "get out" my data from services
that will keep my data anyway.

They also did give Facebook my GMail contacts, which I thought was scuzzy, but
hey that's alright as long as I can export stuff out from various Google
services!

------
gabrielmazzotti
jajajaja Gmail rules!

------
wooptoo
A big middle finger to FB.

------
alain94040
What bothers me is that Google is taking the stance that they have the right
to lock my data in their service if they feel like it.

That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just
conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have
to be open, only if they feel like it).

~~~
mquander
In what way is Google taking that stance? Last I checked, Google was taking
the exactly opposite stance.

<http://www.dataliberation.org/>

~~~
alain94040
Obviously I must have phrased my position wrong, based on the reaction.

Yes, they are taking that stance, since they are imposing conditions on
exporting data from gmail. If I owned and could do anything I wanted with my
data on gmail, then Google _could not_ impose restrictions. They just did (in
their API restrictions). That's what I'm very concerned about.

~~~
mquander
Well, I want an API where I can get all my Gmail messages with their metadata,
all formatted as Clojure maps. Is Google imposing restrictions on me because
nobody has bothered implementing that? Not really. It's analogous.

As long as Google provides ways to get all your data that are free, public,
easy to parse, and well-documented, they aren't imposing restrictions. If they
add extra APIs or additional formats on top of that, it's gravy. Remember, the
point of having these exports is to be able to get your data out and switch
from service to service, so that the market stays competitive. It's not so
that you have a fully-automated Google API for your profile that other
programs can interact with.

