@Elias .. I agree that DataPortability needs to (1) Acknowledge that we’ve been busy soliciting feedback from many, many people and (2) get busy publicly stating what people have told us DataPortability is about.

@ “anonymous” Josh .. What matters is that DataPortabilty.org members include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Flickr, Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, Twitter, etc, etc. And MySpace is a part of OpenSocial. These companies represent hundreds of millions of people. They are actively adopting DataPortability and, thus, hundreds of millions of people will be impact. So ultimately, people will care. In fact, we all leave digital social footprints online (unless you don’t supply something like a URL which can be claimed via rel=”me” semantics).

I don’t give a shit about blu ray or HDVD – but as a consumer, it still affects me because they are different technologies with different benefits.

Googles already storing health records online. Do people give a shit about that? Electronic health records is part of Hillary Clintons key election platforms in the primaries – I would argue an issue to get elected as President is a pretty big endorsement that ‘users’ give a shit about how there data is stored.

Users do give a shit, but their frustrations and fears in the world don’t sync exactly with what other groups, like DataPortability, have identified as trying to find a solution. User give a shit when a company starts spamming everyone in your address book, because they searched your contacts with your e-mail accounts password you had to provide. A thing like the Google contacts API or oAuth which although consumers don’t understand, is something that they will appreciate as they prevents that abuse.

DataPortability is a representation of all the open standards advocated on the web, and a set of principles, under the one brand. To say people don’t give a shit, means the DP group hasn’t effectively communicated the benefits – and that’s only going to happen when we are done which could be anything from 6-24 months.

I do realise that it is more likely that smaller sites will gain more users then they will losee and larger sites will lose more then the gain, as users gather to more specialised niche networks.

Steve

For the record, I was one of the people that “created” DataPortability. Chris Saad raised the idea in a skype chatroom of about a dozen of us working on another project, and we discussed for over a week, before a decision was made to create a workgroup. So whilst I understand other people have different views, I’ve been involved from the start and think the original idea needs to evolve. I may not have a big public presence outside of the DataPortability Project, but I am across every key issue of it. I am not trying to naval gaze, but rather generate some thought leadership that provokes fresh discussion.

Yes – the original concept of DataPortability was about social networks exporting of users data, but since January, the entire scope of DP has changed and I think it’s a lot more than that now.

As for a better way to frame the question, I don’t think there is! As a journalist, you have the role in society to probe key decision makers and make them answer awkward questions. The question you asked actually made me smile because it was a bit tongue in cheek. However, I did want to use your post as an example, because it is reflective of what other people are doing (not just in the media), which is giving a simplistic interpretation of DataPortability that is a bit complicated. Data is seen as a competitive advantage not just for web companies but in other industries – so it’s not something we have a answer yet (officially at least).

That’s no fault of yours, but just shows we need to start communicating more via our blogs rather than having our discussions locked in mailing lists and skype chats, which although are open to anyone, clearly don’t make it all the way when bloggers, journalists and research houses make representations of what DataPortability is.

You did nothing wrong and I should have presented my posting smarter, which I apologise and will update now to reflect that. But in future, if you do speak to Marc, I’d be personally more interested in you asking what does data portability mean to him, which would give more insight into Facebooks approach to the issue.

You had good intentions, and should better watch how I frame things. My sincerest apologies.

Re-read my question. You’re making a blase exaggeration of what I said, so you can do your own navel-gazing, as far as I can tell.

As you must surely know, a use case of data portability is a Facebook user removing their data from Facebook. That’s something others who advocate data portability would like to see happen, even if you also have other ideas.

And, in fact, I agree with you that it’s not just about exporting one’s “social graph.” I’m personally of the opinion that the value of Facebook is in its ability to quickly and easily distribute information through its news feed, mini-feed, applications, etc. “Data” is only part of the value that Facebook provides. It’s not clear how data portability could encapsulate that value — which is what I think you’re trying to say.

In the meantime, if you need to find better ways of defining what “data portability” is supposed to mean, please don’t make me the whipping boy.

Perhaps you can suggest a better way to frame the question to Mark?