Google To Facebook: You Can't Import Our User Data Without Reciprocity
The war between Google and Facebook is heating up: Google just made one small tweak to its Terms of Service that will have a big impact on the world's biggest social network. From now on, any service …
Context & Ripple Effects
The portability debate had already been framed as a new kind of walled garden in 2008: services could nominally support data movement while retaining control over the terms of access. Google’s policy change makes reciprocity the operative condition rather than treating export and import as separate questions.
The move lands as Facebook is broadening its own platform surface through single sign-on, Places APIs and Deals. Control of identity-linked contact data is therefore becoming a competitive issue between two companies building wider service ecosystems.
First-order effects
- Facebook must provide Google comparable access to user data if it wants to continue importing Google user data under the revised terms.
- Google gains a contractual lever over a data flow that benefits Facebook’s social graph and onboarding.
Second-order effects
- Facebook’s identity and platform initiatives face greater pressure to demonstrate openness on terms Google accepts, rather than simply adding partner-facing APIs.
- Other services seeking Google data imports are put on notice that access can be conditioned on reciprocal portability, making data-sharing terms a product-competition tool.
Third-order effects
- Data portability is shifting from an abstract user-rights principle toward bilateral bargaining between platforms, where the largest data holders can set the conditions of interoperability.
- If reciprocal-access requirements spread, platform ecosystems may become more interoperable for users in some directions while also making dominant firms the arbiters of which exchanges qualify.
The trend: Large internet platforms are turning data portability into a reciprocity-based negotiation over identity, contacts and ecosystem control.