The theology of Social Media

Umair Haque reacting to the rumour that Microsoft may buy Facebook, and that if they do that they may keep it a closed system, and in that case it would destroy value and be Evil:

That’s why it’s a (massive) fallacy to argue that any value has been “created”. Value might be created when connected consumers can share and trade preference information or applications across social nets. But value is actually foregone if Microsoft acquires a closed Facebook, because opportunities for consumers, developers, and advertisers alike to meaningfully interact are destroyed. That’s what evil really means: coercing others into accepting value destruction

No great issue with this argument* - AOL, Compuserve, Delphi are all testament to this, though you do have to look at industry structure and barriers to entry - Mobile Telcos have been able to resist interoperation far longer than early OSP's did.

However, I don't quite get why Umair thinks the above are unreconstrucredly "Evil" but Google's play is thusly "Good" when he says:

Contrast that with Google's shift to openness - can you see how it unlocks value for everyone? That's why Microsoft's move is a textbook example of how not to think strategically at the edge. It's yet another example why Google is in a class of its own - across the economy - when it comes to next-generation strategy. Google opening up its ad networks is strategic greatness at work.

Surely Google's play is just an attempt to export other people's social same old same old into their (essentially closed) platform? I thought TechCrunch was more on target:

Google is a little different. They don’t have a social networking presence in the U.S., so they are trying to get in the middle between the guys with the profiles (like Facebook) and the sites that want the data. Their Friend Connect product does just that, and makes them an important data middle man. That position can later be leveraged intensely.

We've been here before, its the good old Aggregation ad Infinitum game, which given Google's starting position its a good bet they are up for a bit of de facto platform & standards definition - a certain Microsoft would recognise that ploy.... or is it heresy to point that out

And I mostly agree with Umair when he notes that:

By following many of the principles we've been discussing here - open beats closed, listening beats talking, good beats evil - Microsoft could learn how to play new kinds of games, that lead to new sources of advantage.

All good stuff * - the thing is I just don't see what Google is doing that is in essence different to Microsoft in its heyday.

*Not certain of this definition of evil, or of good necessarily beating evil, but that is for another day and another pin-head.......