Oh, that didn't grab the whole quote: "the bottom line is that facebook is a company that is very simply most interested in getting people to use their product; not so they can be useful to society, but so they can make money. And they will use they information they get from you to do just that." - Greg Schwartz

To which I ask: "Don't people say the same thing about OCLC?" - Greg Schwartz

Did they ever claim to be something useful to society? (Facebook, not OCLC) - ~Courtney F.

Not the last time I looked. - Greg Schwartz

I think the problem isn't so much what Facebook et al. claim as to how they are perceived and actually used. - s t e v e

Isn't it up to the users to use software the way they wish? - Max Macias

It's up to software developers to provide acceptable affordances and defaults. - D0r0th34

I think its up to peeps. If you don't like things--make something else. We don't need big corps anymore! - Max Macias

What Porter's post made me think of--and probably eventually post myself--is how I wish we had social networking protocols (right word?) instead of sites, so that I could share information on my own site easily without having to post to FriendFeed or Facebook or whomever. - s t e v e

Is FOAF what you're looking for, Steve? http://tinyurl.com/b8ps9 - Julian

Steve: That's what Open Social is all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... (not a very good wikipedia page, but a start) - Derik Badman

Sounds like I need to take a closer look at Open Social - Matt Hamilton

Thanks for the pointers. I have to look into it some more to see how this works (or would work). - s t e v e

Hey Greg, why do you have more comments on this thread commenting on my blog post than the actual blog post??? lol! So funny!!! Truth be told, this actually makes me feel very proud. :) - Michael Porter

@MP - Not sure. And I'm not sure any of them are responding to my original comment. - Greg Schwartz

Things like FOAF and OpenSocial are all well and good, but it doesn't help when all your network is on something like Facebook and there's no data portability. I know I've been meaning to look at FOAF myself, but I just don't have the time. We need transparent services built into tools we already use. - Heidi Blanton

@Michael, MovableType has a plugin to import FF comments to your blog posts, http://mt-hacks.com/2008062..., I see you use WordPress though, not sure if there's something similar for that... - Heidi Blanton

Facebook is a supporter of the data portability workgroup (as are Google, Microsoft, Digg, et. al.), so I'm hoping something will come out of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.... It shouldn't take an hour of hacking and cutting and pasting to get one book review to show up on Facebook, Amazon, GoodReads, LibraryThing, etc. And any comments or responses should follow that review no matter where they originate. OK, that's ambitious in political terms, but we have the technology. - Chris Peters

OCLC is a non-profit, but they still have to break even. The lines are pretty blurry it seems. Their reorg of regional providers reflects some of the changes they are trying to deal with in this regard. - Rev. Dr. W!cKeD Rock

But that's what I'm getting at. OCLC needs to generate revenue. How they do it? By using your information (that is, member libraries' information) to generate a product that they can use to create a revenue stream. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean there isn't a financial motivation behind their use of your information. I'm uncomfortable with (or perhaps unconvinced by) the distinction that MP is trying to draw there. - Greg Schwartz

Slight differences IMO. Diff 1: some info is more useful in aggregate, so until we're all p2p federated, somebody's gotta do the aggregating. IMO a lot of the info OCLC has falls into this category. Diff 2: lib info != personal info. Different rules apply. - D0r0th34

I grant that personal info and library info are not the same animal. (I also think Facebook and Google both demonstrate that personal info is similarly more useful in aggregate.) But I think it's worth noting that there are parallels there and that OCLC's revenue model isn't that far removed from that which is being decried. That said, I really share MP's concerns and am all for looking at Open Social, data portability and the like. - Greg Schwartz

Looks like my next post should be about the feeling and realities associated with OCLC making enough money to pay staff and produce things (and by that I personally feel that means *evolve*). There is good and bad to OCLC needing , I know. Believe me, I do my own share of bashing on occasion, but the larger structure, goals and reporting systems OCLC abides by are, while not perfect, are powerful and useful and honest. Using that system for new kinds of library good holds AMAZING potential in my opinion. - Michael Porter

Plus, none of us can work for free and still pay our bills and eat, right? I work with OCLC because I believe that system has amazing power to do good for libraries and society. I also to work on a project that I believe does that (WebJunction), granted WJ is uniquely autonomous from the larger organization OCLC in some key respects. Really though, OCLC is a non-profit. And while the money for us to live has to come from somewhere, if the value isn't there for libraries then I want us to move to what works. - Michael Porter

I'm all for not working for free, nor do I begrudge anyone their need to stay solvent. Nor do I mean to be OCLC-bashing. All I'm saying is that I see some parallels between giving OCLC information that is then used to make money and Google/Facebook doing the same with the information we give them. As Dorothea has correctly noted, there are also important differences. I was really just hoping to initiate some conversation. Looks like that worked. :-) - Greg Schwartz

@MP - I've tentatively got your piece on the agenda for the show tonight, paired up with this one: http://is.gd/V7F Please feel welcome to join that conversation (not that you need any such invitation, of course). - Greg Schwartz

Ok. I'll try to attend. So so much on my plate with the relaunch, but I want to hear what folks have to say for sure (and maybe even contribute a bit;) - Michael Porter

Well, I think the difference between the motivations of a non-profit and a corporation are that a non-profit needs to make money to stay solvent-- but a corporation must continue to make more and more money for its shareholders. In that case, decisions can begin to be made that have more of an impact on the common good. Not that a non-profit can't do the same thing, there's just less of a motivation to do so... - Matt Hamilton

I am confused by those conclusions, Matthew. I wish I knew more about your perspective and understanding though because my experience and understand tells me the opposite. My organizations is operating slightly differently and perhaps and has unique funding. Maybe that influences part of my perspective? Are you really positing that for-profits can and will do more for the common good than non-profits? Seriously? That isn't really what you are saying is it? Am I confused about what you meant? - Michael Porter

I agree with Richard's comment on the original post, and Matthew's comment above. The library world has yet to realize and act on the fact that _we have competition_ out in the corporate world, by way of services and companies that provide offerings that consumers find more relevant to them than, say, their local library, nevermind libraries as a concept nation-/worldwide. It's that competition -- for profits, standing, whatever -- that drives innovation and progress in other fields. - Andrea Mercado

This also goes back to my post with the question "why aren't libraries building social networks?" Things specific to their communities of users, making them relevant, giving them tools? - Andrea Mercado