Every week it seems like the debate over access to, portability of and privacy over user data on the social web has reached new heights. It's only going to get louder though, just as discussions about other forms of economics will never be resolved.
That's a part of what's going on, economics. This is an information economy, after all, and user data is clearly one of the most important currencies in circulation.
User data has been sold by ISPs, leveraged by ad networks and horded by social networks for years. Now, users are storming the castle to recapture their own booty. We argue that it's in everyone's best interest that the data be freed. Vendors have far more to gain by working to add value to freely flowing data than they do from trying to horde as much data as they can.
Facebook holds a growing amount of user data and tries to hold on to it tightly in the name of user privacy. Founding CEO Mark Zuckerberg told us in an interview at SXSW that he agrees with the principals of data portability but believes that Facebook has to solve a number of problems about privacy as its contribution to the data portability discussion. At the time many people were skeptical of Zuckerberg's claim (some still are) - but nothing illustrated the validity of his argument better than Scoblegate.
High profile blogger Robert Scoble teamed up with spamtastic startup Plaxo to scrape the emails from his contacts' profiles in Facebook, turn them from protected images into machine readable text with OCR technology and then export them outside of Facebook. Facebook shut Scoble's account down for a couple of days and a huge brouhaha erupted. Some said that Scoble had every right to the email of his contacts and others said they only gave him a right to see their contact info in Facebook and not to export it elsewhere.
Can users have access to data about their past activities and their social connections without violating the privacy of the people they are connected to? That is the question and no solution has been found yet. There needs to be though and it ought to be a solution that's standards-based and thus reproducible everywhere.
Protection of user privacy is a precondition to meaningful data portability, but vendor control over data is a stopgap measure at most - no more than a short term solution. In the long run, there needs to be a way for users to designate some of their data as being not for export or use outside of its original context. The data that is made available for public sharing should be accessible through a standards-based system of authentication, so any new vendor can show up and make use of it.
In the long term, it's in everyone's best interests for data to be as portable as possible. For users, data portability means that we can invest time and resources into new platforms on the web without the fear that the work we create will be locked in to that network or otherwise lost to us. It also offers the possibility that we can take our compiled work in one place and let another service process that data to create new kinds of value for our benefit. For example, being able to export our reading history from one service would enable other services to immediately recommend new experiences they can offer based on our tastes elsewhere. The music website Idiomag, for example, can look at our public history on Last.fm and build from that history a customized music "magazine" about artists we would likely enjoy. That's just one kind of service that could be enabled for users by data portability.
Most importantly for the purposes of this post, vendors too have an interest in data portability. Allowing your users to port their data elsewhere means that you'll be able to import their data from other platforms enabling export as well. When your users take their history with you to another site, they will be able to make faster, better friends and content connections in that new place, which should lead to their having a better developed social network to bring back to your site.
If you can add value to user data, and thus help grow the aggregate information economy, then there should be far more information for you to monetize (advertise against) than you could keep within your grasp alone. Add value, let it go and focus on offering a compelling enough user experience that users will bring their data back to you, freshly grown from their experiences in other environments. Everybody wins.
Google search has huge value not because it owns anything but because it touches everything. The value it ads by enabling discoverability lets the web at large grow, meaning that there's more web for Google to advertise on. Google Friend Connect, on the other hand, keeps users' social and activity data on Google servers - barring the participating websites from gaining read/write access to that data. What a huge loss for everyone!
Recall the economic theory of comparative advantage. International development thinker and all around Renaissance man Jed Sundwall says the old "I'm better at making wine, you're better at making cheese, let's trade" logic could well apply to social web data portability as well. Facebook, for example, has a great video mail system. It doesn't do microblogging well at all. Allowing a user to bring their video mail from Facebook with them to Twitter and their Twitter history with them to Facebook would only make both services stronger. Blogger and economist in a previous life Bob Uva says it's a matter of enabling "greater efficiency by all points of production." There's no need for one service to reinvent the wheel or spend resources building data extraction technology if there is standards based data portability. Likewise, users wouldn't have to start anew building their social networks and personal profile/history in every new service they join. What that increased efficiency means is more innovation, both in terms of service features and personal creativity.
Perhaps what we need is not just data portability but data neutrality, a paradigm emphasizing that only users can control where their data passes from one location to another. Just like supporters of net neutrality argue, allowing vendors to limit passage of data allows them to stifle upstart competitors and hurts the whole web's need for continuous innovation.
Privacy is really important in order for data portability to be real. Working to assure that privacy is important, but we also need to see vendors making consistent progress towards a user-centric economy of open data. That means that building iframes and widgets to send the social around the web is just a short term solution. More important news for long term progress would be vendors accepting inbound OpenID, offering oAuth APIs for passing user data along from site to site, marking up user data with semantic and microformat code to make that data machine readable elsewhere, enabling easy behavioral data export and perhaps most importantly building the machinery that will process portable data as the world moves in that direction.
Everyone says they support data portability but it's most exciting to see vendors who are developing methods of deriving value for users and for themselves from the free passage of data that ought to be the defining characteristic of the web, once user control and privacy are workably solved. We want it, you want it, we're all going to get more value out of it if service providers offer a place to put our data and make some magic with it.
As Chris Saad, founder of the Data Portability Working Group said today, data portability is the new web and vendor apps are like the browsers that allow you to view and remix that data. That's where the innovation that will fuel the future growth of the information economy will come from. Users have to have a reasonable expectation that they will be safe, secure and in control of their own data assets - and then it's a competition to see which vendors can add the most value to the free flow of data. In just a few short years, vendors should win the hearts of users by providing superior service - not in any part by locking in data. Let's have heated debates about who's innovating the fastest using the secure, free flow of user data - not about whether that needs to happen at all.
Horse race photo by Ian Ransley. Special thanks to the friends who helped me with this post on Twitter, UStream, the telephone and a wiki - we used each of those media to put this together and it was a lot of fun.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
And thank you Marshall, for bringing to attention the core issue behind the DataPortability Project which is helping change the culture of industry thinking. You've given some insight into a new economics for the web, that to date, not many bloggers seem to have picked up on.
People intially were afraid of it - but as you touch on using economic theory as a point of illustration - it's actually not a scary thing for business. The more people delve into the concept, the more they realise it's a net benefit for the entire industry. There are so many facets to data portability and you've just highighted the most profound. Good work.
This is definitely the angle to pursue to get the gears of BigCo. turning in favor of the users.
Friend Connect is really neat, and I see the added value for small-ish websites to be able to play in a big social game... but that game has got to be with the rest of the web and not just with Google's private, untouchable data.
The idea that, via data portability, Twitter and Facebook could "integrate" with one another is a phenominal notion... it would not only add value (as well as users) to both services but it would also help a small service that gets popular (like Twitter) by ensuring that huge services (like Facebook) have a real honest and economic interest in seeing that service do well and remain stable. I could be wrong... but that's how I see it.
Very exciting space to be watching. This year is going to bear witness to some really neat innovation... I only hope the people running the show at the giant companies are willing to see the forest for the trees, otherwise the social web of the future will be the doing of someone else. Users are going to gravitate to the services that do what's best for the users, period.
For more on the economic-theory angle, I suggest Yochai Benkler's The Wealth of Networks. His point is that IP protection in the long-run is a bad idea because it stifles innovation. I've written on it here: http://www.collaborativeye.com/collaboration_journal/intellectual-property-protection-a-barrier-to-collaboration-.html
really solid post. great job.
Maybe in the long run the majority will support Data Portability. But all that remains is Services. What services can the user have? Do these services improve his/her social life? Are these services FREE for the user? Are your services useful for the vendors even?
These are just some of the questions that I think we should be looking at.
Good post, but:
1) my Bank has Some of my Personal Data
2) my doctor has also another part of my Personal Data
3) my Gas Station has also another part of my Personal Data
4) my Credit card company has also another part of my Personal Data
Do I want all of them to have access to all of my Personal Data ? My own answer is NO.
The same should apply to the Web
This article makes some great points and raises very important questions but regarding the information economy there is one part of the equation that is not mentioned - the fact that people have to be willing to pay for data privacy/storage.
I agree with the fact that its in everyone's best interest that data be freed, but that data has a cost associated with it that the user (or users) are not willing to pay. Someone is writing these applications and database queries, someone is paying for the data to be stored on a server or cluister of servers somewhere, but the user is off the hook from the upfront cost of creating, storing, querying, of their data. Hence the plans to create revenue via ads and that's where the tradeoff is.
Would anyone be willing to create a site that is pay to play - i.e., we won't sell your data to anyone at all, but we need help in paying for storage, employees, etc., so if you're willing to pay X amount per month/year we could make this site work.
Not that a site or company built upon user revenue stream is impossible, but people are so used to everything being free, I think you'd have a a hard time convincing a large amount of people to pay.
The old adage is "data wants to be free," but I think the caveat to that is, "and the people who supply it or store it want to be paid."
In late 1999, a company called PrivaSeek developed a lockbox for user data, a white hat effort renamed Persona. We had $67 million in VC cash to build the tools but timing and the CEO view of the market was distorted just enough to miss the points you have articulated so well. It should have been about the experience but a toolmaker culture failed to persist thru the Internet bust.
There are those of us in the Boulder area who were MatchLogic Excite@Home and DoubleClick dataminers that have answers and experiences staging to manage a personal experience that make data, attention and trust a business and a brand. Our brand, if we can foster its growth to the point of calling it a brand, will amplify the power of YOU, the way its should be.
Loook for it, its coming.
i really don't care about the data ... it is the use of the data that i want to be completely totally absolutely unhindered
don't fuck with me, and maybe i will use your product
I think the data portability topic is very important, but why it came soo late? I read a post about it on http://blog.nektra.com/main/2008/05/09/data-portability-is-good-but-late-20/ and I agreed.
Ok late but not later than now.. that's the more important bit...