Facebook Updates Are Now Searchable; Not What Most Users Joined For
Facebook is really flexing its muscles today. First it acquired radically innovative social network FriendFeed and now it has announced that it's opened up search across all status messages, notes and shared links that users have marked as public. (Don't worry, yours aren't public unless you changed your own settings.)
Searching across all users, whether you know them or not, requires a couple of clicks - but the availability of the feature marks a dramatic turning point in the history of Facebook. For months the company has been pushing users towards being more public and less private. This is why.
Google still can't index the contents of Facebook, because Facebook is positioning itself as a major competitor to Google. There is no RSS feed available for searches, even updates marked public are only public within the walls of Facebook, not on the open web at large. Developers can't build innovative new applications on top of the new Facebook search. It's a walled garden - why would you ever want to leave when Facebook can fill all your needs as a user?!
There's something creepy about this. We've asked before if Facebook is a cult and we've discussed how its privacy moves represent an agenda that praises privacy but doesn't support the kind of privacy people experience in real life. (You share different things with different people, depending on the context.) You probably joined Facebook because you thought it was a secure place to converse with friends and family. It may still be, but the company sure would like it if you'd please lift the lid and let the world search and view those conversations.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
OK, Facebook may want to believe they're competition for Google, but the truth is they're just pootin' in the wind. And you're right, the only people really interested in the open search are marketers and perverts.
You tell, 'em, Cheap Golf Balls! Who'd ever search for Cheap Golf Balls on Facebook anyway? Twitter maybe, but FB? Never!
I appreciate your comment, just felt cruel enough to mock someone whose mamma gave them a name like that. Sorry if it's a touchy issue for you.
is this pushed out? i don't see it on my facebook.
Raymond, they are rolling it out in stages. You'll get it soon. I wouldn't be surprised if us suckers who marked ourselves as public saw it first. I don't know though.
Not sure. I think if fb respects the privacy controls and even expands them to allow for more granualar sharing, eg per photo, people may well be willing to share more or make fb their default microblogging application. I actively use twitter predominantly as a gateway to my blog and facebook profile, passively instead of an rss reader - it's really mostly an interface, because it sits nicely in the corner of my browser. Why shouldn't the facebook publisher get that job if it's as simple as it is now but offers more publishing options which require plugins on twitter *AND* there's an option to share selectively from ONE person to everyone incl. google AND my blog.
I love Facebook, unfortunately they will have to tear down the walls, otherwise they will eventually be ousted by a similarly or better designed open social network. They do not have the leverage that, say, an Apple has by producing something that is much more difficult to replicate, like hardware (at least at this time). They have a terrific brand for sure, though, and that has been good enough for Google so far, even though their search is no better than the competition.
Oh stop whining, RWW. This post follows the standard procedure of finding a new feature of a social site and labeling it "creepy". Too bad the logic behind that conclusion breaks down because:
1) This kind of search has been LAUDED by RWW as implemented in FriendFeed. Why is it bad when Facebook does it? Bias?
2) Facebook has VERY granular privacy controls. If something's exposed, it's usually the user's fault
3) Newsfeed content has always been viewable by your friends in the default setting anyway. Which means that any one of your FB friends can find that embarrassing comment you made unless you delete it
4) Has it occurred to you that unless the searcher has some idea what he's already looking for, he'll find nothing?
This article = standard trash
it's not what most people signed up for but many will like this functionality. Plus i don't see how this breaches any privacy settings, since only public updates are searchable.
it's a good thing to be able to get a glimpse of what's shaking in the fb world, esp., given the size of facebook.
Twitter search is crap for anything that is not in English and doesn't have to do with entertainment or current news.
The implementation doesn't seem very obtrusive either.
I think this is a great step from Facebook- but it could be better. Facebook needs an API if they want people to really use their content. A Facebook search on its own is virtually useless, unless it is paired with some other functionality.
I don't think Marshall was saying that the search part is creepy, he was saying that the lack of an API (or the "walled garden" mentality) is creepy, and I tend to agree with him.
Pink is the new black and Facebook is the new AOL. Seems to me like this new feature elevates Facebook just slightly above it's mediocrity. Now we can find everyone who played FarmVille tonight. This will be a really useful new feature.
I'm in LANjackal's camp. There is absolutely nothing creepy about Facebook Search. It's time for the privacy fanatics to face the music: transparency is the ultimate purveyor of good taste, and of sensibility. Let's remember the "network" in social network, and lose the privacy fetish. Update your custom settings, and get on with microblogging your cozy, homespun dramas...
I have to sit with Marshall on this one. If Facebook took down the walled garden I'd be less worried. Also the comparison between sharing on FriendFeed and Facebook isn't quite apples to apples. FriendFeed is comprised of things that people have put into the the stream on purpose. Facebook, the it's a bit different. There isn't the "it's all public" vibe. At first things were just for friends, then extended groups, now everyone. It's getting a little slippery.
Everyone of these changes pushes me closer to getting rid of my Facebook account. Professionally, I need to be there, so I'll have to be happy with locking things down more and more.
What I fear most is Facebook destroying a service that hadn't found quite found its way, but had tremendous potential. Putting it behind a walled garden in hopes of luring us in (then locking the gate behind) isn't my idea of innovation. Just sounds like AOL all over again.
LANJackal, "if something is exposed it is usually the user's fault". Really? What about defaulting to more private features and let users open features BEFORE they realize to their chagrin and possibly embarrassment that they should laboriously have gone through each and every functionality on the FB site with a fine tooth comb? Your's is precisely the kind of moronic belief that will kill FB. "Open" web does not need to mean wide open for public.
Really, I don't see a big deal -- as long as Facebook still respects the privacy settings of each user. Final say is still up to each person.
So, for those who want to have their links and updates and etc., public, great. If you don't, they won't.
-Mike
I cannot believe the things that Facebook is starting to do. It seems to be scared of Twitter or something with adding all of these dumb features. I'm closing my account today and trying out that new site knoyce.com. It has to be better than what Facebook is doing.
@nytimesbits see the screnshot of a search here http://bit.ly/TpOFw [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/3235787362]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
August 14, 2009 1:19 AM
What is wrong this industry we have been in for over a decade now?
Isn't it obvious that the missing or "unavailable" functionality is allowing a user to choose to make each individual update public or private?
Facebook should be ashamed of either being too stoned or too stingy when creating a program without this functionality.
Everyone else should be ashamed, not limited to the authors of this post and these comments, for not recognizing this all-too-common type of blunder.
And I am not embarrassed to say so... anonymously of course!
The only surviving beasts at the end of the social network wars will be one that can fully satisfy the needs of both our ego and our id.
"...our ego and our super-ego's ideals and pressures are often in conflict with the id's, causing repression, as the gratification of the id's drives would often be devastating in terms of social- and self-image."
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Ego
My ego wants me to correct a couple grammar mistakes, but I find myself a victim of the lack of functionality to edit or remove my previous comment, so I will just have to burn more space, time, and carbon posting a corrected version... mainly just to prove another point.
What is wrong with this industry we have been in for over a decade now?
Isn't it obvious that the missing or "unavailable" functionality is allowing a user to choose to make each individual update public or private?
Facebook should be ashamed of either being too stoned or too stingy when creating a program without this functionality.
Everyone else should be ashamed, not limited to the authors of this post and these comments, for not recognizing this all-too-common type of blunder.
And I am not embarrassed to say so... anonymously of course!
The only surviving beasts at the end of this social network war will be the ones that can fully satisfy the needs of both our ego and our id.
"...our ego and our super-ego's ideals and pressures are often in conflict with the id's, causing repression, as the gratification of the id's drives would often be devastating in terms of social- and self-image."
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Ego