Facebook Buys FriendFeed

Facebook Aquires FriendFeed

A few hours ago I learned that Facebook had acquired one of my favorite current little playgrounds on the internet FriendFeed. There’s been no talk on the price they paid, but if I just threw a total guess out of left field I’d say it was somewhere around $100 million. That’s just a guess. I’m sure the real number will come out soon enough. While I’m sure that this deal is a fantastic one for the founders of Friendfeed (who were probably already multi-millionaires from their earlier roles at Google and now just became that much richer) I’m not feeling so positive about it for the actual users of FriendFeed.

In the blog post announcing the acquisition, Bret Taylor wrote: “FriendFeed.com will continue to operate normally for the time being. We’re still figuring out our longer-term plans for the product with the Facebook team.” To me that sentence right there is the kiss of death for FriendFeed as a stand alone service. In actuality, the FriendFeed team probably has a very good idea what things are going to look like in the longer-term and I’m guessing that it doesn’t include FriendFeed operating as a stand-alone little playpen outside of the great gates of mother Facebook.

No. In time it is likely that little by little at first (but completely and entirely eventually) FriendFeed as we know it gets migrated and merged into Facebook. Techcrunch put it more directly in a quote attribute to FriendFeed Co-Founder Bret Taylor and Facebook VP Chris Cox: “Taylor and Cox say that the Friendfeed product will live on independently, and eventually Friendfeed will be merged into Facebook.”

While the million or so estimated monthly uniques that FriendFeed gets are a drop in the bucket to Facebook, in that number are still a lot of super active users and Facebook will certainly do what it can to keep them. But Facebook didn’t buy FriendFeed for the users. Facebook, frankly, could care less about FriendFeed’s users. They bought FriendFeed for two reasons. 1. The superior technology and ideas that it represents for life-streaming (many of them already blatantly copied by Facebook). and 2. Even more significantly, the talented small group of employees that built FriendFeed. A talented group of ex-Google employees.

I spent a few hours this afternoon on Facebook after the announcement playing around on it. I hadn’t checked in with my Facebook account for a while and so mostly I just had a lot of clean up to do. 34 friend requests to approve. 270 or so group invitations to ignore. 90 or so Facebook fan page requests to deny. A bunch of facebook email spam to delete and other legitimate messages to answer. And worst of all, what felt like thousands of little Facebook app requests to have to deal with. The stupidest little app requests you’ve ever seen. Most of which felt confusing, broken, and hard to block or ignore.

FB: You have a pokemon request. Me: Block This Application FB: Something went wrong. We’re working on getting this fixed as soon as we can. You may be able to try again. Sigh.

FB: You have a pokeman adventure request (as opposed to just the regular old pokeman request I tried to block earlier).
Me: click on the “Please Block My Friends’ Pokemon Adventure Invitations :.(FB: “Allowing Pokemon Adventure access will let it pull your profile information, photos, your friends’ info, and other content that it requires to work. Allow or Cancel?” Me: I have no idea what i’m supposed to do to make the Pokemon people go away.FB: “By proceeding, you are allowing Pokemon Adventure to access your information and you are agreeing to the Facebook Terms of Use in your use of Pokemon Adventure. By using Pokemon Adventure, you also agree to the Pokemon Adventure Terms of Service.” Sigh.

Now hopefully the FriendFeed team will be able to have a positive impact on the whole Facebook experience. I can’t imagine that it can get much worse. But… Facebook is a huge, huge, monster at this point. Getting things done there or changed for the better will be super hard to do. There will be new pressures of having to deal with the influence of advertisers in page design as well as having to try and keep all of those app developers who develop those insipid little apps happy. I suspect that even with the positive influence of the FriendFeed team that it will be far too little to have enough of a positive impact on Facebook to make it really usable.

There are of course lots of other problems with this deal for FriendFeed’s users. Some users use Facebook for their real life friends and family and FriendFeed as something totally different. They purposely want two places to play. And they like having one where their mom and brother sister and cousin and high school girlfriend aren’t hanging out watching everything they do. Facebook is also blocked at a lot more jobs than FriendFeed is. So some people will likely end up losing their daily does of screwing around on the company nickle in the end.

Then there is the whole pesky issue of censorship. One of the things that I really liked about FriendFeed was that it seemed totally and absolutely free of censorship. On the other hand we have Facebook who thinks that breastfeeding moms are evil and must be purged from their system.

A lot of people, including my friend Robert Scoble, seem positive on the deal. But others are negative. Blogger Dave Winer put it very simply: “FB buying FF is bad news for FF users.” I suppose we’ll have to see how it all shakes out in the end, but I do feel sort of sad today, like we did in fact lose something that had so much amazing potential to be something so much bigger than even Facebook. That may be pie in the sky thinking, but that’s how it felt sometimes.

You can add me as a contact on FriendFeed here.

You can add me as a contact on Facebook here.

Flickr “Not Currently Working” on Account Restore Feature After Users Suffer Losses of Thousands of Photos

Flickr "Not Currently Working" on Account Restore Feature After Users Suffer Losses of Thousands of Photos

With respect to your posting of the TV screengrab, I don’t think it was a mistake to delete it, but I do think it was (and is) a mistake to not have a mechanism to restore that kind of deletion.
— Stewart Butterfield, Flickr Founder and Former Flickr Chief, May 19, 2007

"I’m afraid this isn’t the result of some work we’re doing on a restore feature… I’m sorry to disappoint that it’s not the result of a feature. We have heard your feedback about that here, and in the past, and we know it is on some people’s wish list, but it’s not something that we are working on currently."
— Zack Shephard, Flickr Staffer, August 7, 2009

Over two years ago Flickr Founder and former Chief Stewart Butterfield publicly posted that it was a "mistake" for Flickr not to have a mechanism to restore photos that had been deleted on Flickr. He made the comment in response to a photograph of mine that Flickr had censored that he said was not a mistake, adding though that not having a restore photo capability more broadly was in fact a "mistake" at Flickr.

Last week there were several stories having to do with account deletions at Flickr. In one case a hacker had gotten a hold of a Flickr users credentials and deleted over 3,000 photos in a user’s photostream. Another case involved a professional photographer who had his entire stream nuked after being informed by Flickr that the reason for this was that he was posting other people’s photos (something the photographer, who had all of his images watermarked with his own copyright info, denies). Yet another case involved a Flickr user who apparently had some of his Flickr photos posted in an internet forum without containing links back to Flickr. In this last case Flickr agreed that it looked like "maybe the deletion wasn’t the right course of action," adding that the user was "lucky" that they were able to catch the account deletion due to a backlog of account deletion processings and then restoring his account and giving him four free years of Pro account status.

There have been other even higher profile cases of Flickr account deletion as well. Earlier this year, Flickr nuked user Shephard Johnson’s entire photostream and account after he posted comments critical of President Obama on the official White House photostream. In that case Johnson lost about 1,200 photos of his, many of them which were not backed up. Johnson was offered a free Flickr Pro account after the fiasco but like previous users was told that Flickr could not restore his account.

As it stands now when a user’s photostream is deleted at Flickr it is gone. Erased. Permanently and irrevocably. Many Flickr users are appreciably nervous about this fact, especially after reading stories about hackers infiltrating flickr accounts or when overzealous underlings in the Flickr Censorship Division seem to overreact to minor Flickr Community Guidelines violations by nuking users’ photostreams.

When Flickr nukes a user’s photostream, it’s not just the users’ photos that are gone. It’s all of the rich, important and vibrant social metadata around the photos that are gone with it. I’ve had many very long engaging conversations around my and others photos on the site. When Flickr nukes your stream those all get erased from existence.

Flickr user Saint Seminole summed up the problem fairly succiently:

"So personally, I wouldn’t be worried about losing the photos themselves. I’d be worried about losing all the work I’d put in the site over the past few years. All those cross-photo links, all the links from my blogs and others back to my flickr photos, all the website links I have directing people to my Flickr sets, my collections, my tag groupings, my archive date links, and on and on.

All the meticulous placing of photos on the Flickr map, in hundreds of cities and several countries…

This is why I personally would be worried about an accidental deletion, not the losing of photo files. This certainly seems like it should be a *MUCH* higher priority than redesigning "post now" buttons, etc. For Flickr, this should be a number one priority to protect its reputation…"

The answer to all of these concerns is rather simple really. Rather than permanently deleting accounts when Flickr feels that a user has crossed them, they could instead simply convert the account to a private account on Flickr making the stream invisible to everyone in the Flickrverse except the individual user. By locking the account down this way Flickr would be able to remove whatever it is that they find offensive while still allowing the user the ability to download photos of theirs that are not backed up or allowing Flickr to restore accounts where their censors make mistakes or overreact to minor guidelines.

Many Flickr users put tens, hundreds, in some cases even thousands of hours into building their flickr photostreams. More than just their time and energy though, what so many are offering up through Flickr is their art. Something that carries a far greater emotional cost than simply time or money. And all of these people have to live with the knowledge that their entire creative endeavors on Flickr could be blotted away with the 2 second push of a button. So it was very disappointing yesterday reading more than two years after Flickr Chief Stewart Butterfield called the inability to restore photos on Flickr a "mistake," that Flickr still today is not working on a mechanism to restore deleted photos. What bothers me as much if not more than the fact that Flickr won’t develop this important feature is that they refuse to even provide their reasoning for why they will not.

I have a hard time believing that the reasons why Flickr will not offer this sort of safety net have anything to do with engineering resources. Recently Flickr changed all the delete buttons on the site red. They also went to the trouble to personally code the "about Flickr" staff page so that it shows me, Thomas Hawk a single user, a different staff than it shows every other user. How is it that Flickr seems to have the staff resources to do these relatively insignificant coding projects, and yet they don’t have the resources to code a sane and reasonable restore feature for bad account deletions?

I’m not quite sure what the answer is to getting Flickr to agree to this important safety net. They basically have a monopoly on the community photo sharing space at present and can pretty much get away with doing anything that they feel like with impunity no matter how much it upsets their users. And that’s too bad.

Update: After refusing to address the issue of why Flickr won’t commit to a reasonable, responsible and sane approach to account deletion recovery, as is typical, Flickr staff has returned with a non-answer and locked the thread to avoid future criticism against them.

From Flickr Staffer Zack Shephard: “Since the OPs issue has been resolved I’m going to close this down. We have left it open because there was obviously some concern about this and we wanted to let discussion keep going. There is a lot of food for thought here and thank you all for letting us know about your concerns. This is still the help forum though and because the OPs issue is resolved I think it’s time to move on to the next.” And just like that another conversation critical of Flickr is killed.

Flickr = Censorship (Updated)

flickr = censorship

An update on Edelson Flores’ account deletion case here.

Well unfortunately another week is upon us and that means we have to deal with yet another case of Flickr/Yahoo censorship. The victim this time is professional photographer Edelson C. Flores. Flores first aired his concern about his account deletion in the Flickr Help Forum after trying to contact Flickr staff privately with no success. That thread subsequently was locked by Flickr staff. Flores tried to again air his concern in another thread in the help forum that also was promptly locked as well.

From Flores’ original complaint:

“I have written several times asking why my account “adoniel” was deleted several days ago without any previous notice or warning but I have yet to receive a formal reply from Flickr with an explanation. I am a professional photographer and all the content in my photostream was my own work, creation and intellectual property. I also don’t believe I had posted any content that would have been deemed inappropriate or violated your guidelines. I am very disappointed as I had spent a great deal of time uploading my photos, tagging and adding descriptions. Your actions are extremely inconsiderate and highly questionable. I was about to upgrade my account to a Pro 2-year account, but I am very glad I did not upgraded. I would prefer to spend my money elsewhere if this is how you treat your customers. You have certainly lost my trust, business and support. I am writing to Yahoo Inc, your parent company to let them know exactly how you run this web site and treat customers. I am very disappointed with your actions and lack of communication.
Sincerely,

Edelson C. Flores
Flickr: “adoniel” “

In addition to locking the threads above where Flores was protesting his account deletion, Flickr also redacted the name of the Flickr staffer in question who had provided Flores the reasoning for his account deletion, Terrence.

Below is the original email informing Flores of his account deletion provided by Edelson to me:

[Flickr Case 1278697] Re: Report Abuse: Other Concerns
Thursday, August 6, 2009 4:06 PM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
“Flickr Support”
Add sender to Contacts
To:
adoniel@yahoo.com
Hello,

Flickr account “adoniel” was deleted by Flickr staff for
violating our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.

http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne

# Do upload content that you have created.
Respect the copyright of others. This means don’t steal
photos or videos that other people have shared and pass
them
off as your own. (That’s what favorites are for.)

# Don’t upload anything that isn’t yours.
This includes other people’s photographs and/or stuff that
you’ve collected from around the Internet. Accounts that
consist primarily of such collections may be terminated.

Flickr reserves the right to deactivate your account
without warning at any time.

-Terrence

Based on the above email it would seem that Flores’ account was terminated because Flickr alleged that he was hosting photographs that were not his. But Flores tells a different story. When I contacted Flores about this issue he said, “I have been a professional freelance photographer for the last 10 years. All the content/images that were posted in my Flickr photostream were all my work, creation and intellectual property.” Furthermore all photos in Flores’ stream were watermarked with his own personal copyright information. It is hard for me to see how Flickr could make a mistake of deciding that these photos did not belong to Flores.

When I asked Flores if he’d received further emails or warning emails from Flickr regarding his account, he said he had not. He said that the email above was the only email that he’d received from Flickr.

I’ve contacted Yahoo to try and get their side of the story on this although I have not heard back from them yet. I suspect, as is the case in other situations that they will refuse to comment on Flores’ case and refuse to reinstate his account. This is not right.

Flickr owes their customers better than this. When we spend our time and energy investing in the work to upload, tag, store, etc. our photos on Flickr, Yahoo owes us at a minimum a warning before they delete accounts, as well as an appeals process to reinstate deleted accounts. Flickr’s policy of shoot first, ask questions later is short-sighted. Because Flickr largely has a monopoly on the online photographic community, however, they seem to feel that they can abuse their customers and get by with impunity. And that also is too bad.

Personally I think that Flickr owes Flores an apology and also owes him his account back. Rather than trying to push yet another of their censorship mistakes under the rug by locking threads complaining about it, they ought to own up to their error and offer us a roadmap on how they will prevent this sort of error from happening again next week. Unfortunately though it seems that to Flickr/Yahoo, it’s just one more disgruntled censored customer and who the hell cares about that.

Update: It seems after yesterday’s account deletion without warning, Flickr is back at it again today. Read the latest complaint below taken from the Flickr Help Forum by user Riann Flynn:

“Hey there!

I think my account was deleted and i’m not sure why! I had hundreds of thousands of views, i was on the front page of explore a few times and I was an active member of many groups! My account just disappeared

I’m ok just starting over, but can i have my old url back? This way i dont have to redo all the links in my website and what not.

Please get back to me quickly. I have tried emailing CS, but i haven’t gotten a response!

Thanks!
Rian Flynn
http://www.RianFlynn.com

flickr.com/photos/rianflynn”

More here.

Is eBay the Future Home for Dead Neon Signs?

Star View Motel, Established 1945, RIPThis vintage neon sign can be yours… if the price is right!

A few weeks ago I posted about my recent trip to Las Vegas and in my post mentioned that I took a few photos of demolition people tearing down the old Sky View Motel in Boulder City, NV. Some people wondered and asked about what would happen to the beautiful neon sign that sat on the corner outside the property. More and more classic American neon signs are being torn down either as businesses are being razed or simply torn down and replaced by ugly plastic alternatives. This movement towards tearing down beautiful old neon signs / uglifying America is part of what has me so interested in shooting as many of them as I can to preserve at least an image of the sign before they are gone.

A lot of times these old signs simply are trashed. That’s what happened last year to the Walter Bennett Camera store in Oakland I understand. Museums like the MONA in Los Angeles, the Neon Museum in Las Vegas, the American Sign Museum in Cincinnati, and the Neon Museum of Philadelphia, have begun trying to save and preserve many of these vintage signs.

While I was down visiting the MONA over Christmas I was talking to the guy working the museum there and he was telling me that more and more these vintage signs were becoming valuable items for collectors. He told me that the MONA had just sold their neon diver for thousands of dollars to a collector who had a bunch of large vintage neon signs around his swimming pool. (Now that’s something I’d like to see and shoot!).

And like anything that collectors are interested in these days, I thought it was interesting when Flickr user call to preserve pointed out on my recent photo of the Star View Motel neon sign that it is now for sale on eBay. And it made me wonder if eBay is becoming the de facto home for old vintage neon signs, rather than simply scraping them. I suppose in some ways it’s good to see that some aren’t being totally destroyed. On the other hand, I sure do hate it when great art goes into the hands of greedy collectors who simply lock it up in their mansions, never allowing the rest of the world to see it.

The Destruction of the American Motel

If you’re interested in the old Sky View Motel neon sign it can be yours for a song — $1,500 as a buy it now item to be exact. Of course you do have to figure out how you are going to get to Boulder City Nevada (right away as the ad reads) and cut the puppy down as well as transport a 8ft by 20ft neon sign to your backyard somewhere. I might suggest getting a friend really, really, really drunk and then egging them on to buy it. It could be hilarious watching them try to take the thing down. Hopefully if nobody buys this one for $1,500 it still ends up in a neon museum’s collection somehow. It’s too pretty a sign to let it go to waste.

Recently when I visited the Neon Museum in Las Vegas they told me that a lot of these old signs are actually owned by sign companies and not by establishments themselves. That the sign companies simply lease them to property owners and then provide service as part of the deal. As often as Vegas neon turns over, sometimes this makes more sense for the casinos. In the case of this motel neon sign though, I suspect this one’s actually owned by the motel. It looks like it’s been there a long time.

For one of the funniest stories I’ve seen about a guy who bought a neon sign check out this video here. Warning, there is a lot of swearing in the video but you should definitely consider watching it if you care at all about the preservation of American signs.

You can see my complete collection of neon sign photos here. You can see my collection of motel neon signs here. You can see my photos from Los Angeles MONA museum here.

Skydivers Over San Francisco

Skydivers Over San Francisco

Just past noon today in San Francisco T-Mobile launched 100 professional skydivers into the skies over San Francisco as part of a promotion for their new HTC myTouch 3G phone, T-Mobile’s answer to Apple’s iPhone. The HTC myTouch 3G phone uses Google’s new Android operating system.

The skydivers (many formerly from elite military services) jumped over Justin Herman Plaza near the Ferry Building, Pier 39, Moscone Center and the Marina Green.